antimatter physics opportunities with elena at cern ad n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Antimatter Physics Opportunities with ELENA at CERN-AD PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Antimatter Physics Opportunities with ELENA at CERN-AD

Antimatter Physics Opportunities with ELENA at CERN-AD

364 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Antimatter Physics Opportunities with ELENA at CERN-AD

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Antimatter Physics Opportunities with ELENA at CERN-AD ELENA-Canada Working Group TRIUMF Town Hall Meeting Aug 1-3, 2007

  2. This talk is NOT about • Request for General Infrastructure Support for External Program • Support for external experiments (e.g, G0, Qweak, ALPHA) an important part of present Five Year Plan • Should remain so for 2010-15  See Des Ramsay’s report to TUG 5YP Committee

  3. This talk is about: • Proposal for TRIUMF’s Accelerator-Related Contributions to ELENA (Extra Low Energy Antiproton Ring) • A new compact cooler ring for ultra-low energy antiprotons at CERN-AD • Dramatic enhancement of antimatter physics opportunities • No parallel sessions at this meeting --- many people running the experiment at CERN or away • Have been doing our home work for the past year; submitted “white paper” to TRIUMF/TUEC

  4. Given that: Hydrogen: one of best studied system in all physics (c.f. Nobel Prize 2005) Cold Antihydrogen: produced in large quantities (APS, IOP: Top Physics News 2002)  H-Hbar comparison: Obvious thing to do! Some of best CPT tests, 1st Antimatter Gravity CERN Review: “no guarantee, but imperative duty” Technically very challenging. Similarities with ion traps, UCN, but antiparticles difficult Physics Case: Simple and Clear • Comparisons of simplest atom (H) and anti-atom (Hbar) with highest possible precision

  5. Examples: with1000 trapped Hbars • 10-12 precision (Df~1 kHz)in 1s-2s laser transition (Hänsch 1993) • e+ mass, charge improved by 4 orders of magnitude • X 10 more stringent CPT test than K0 in absolute energy scale (within effective field theory) • With laser cooling • Direct test on gravity on antimatter • Precision and feasibility fundamentally limited by number of Hbars Vertical Hbar trap H Vertical height ~1 m for Hbar at 2 mK

  6. ELENA 5 MeV 100 keV 5 keV Deceleration E-cooling Why ELENA? Trap Degrader foil AD 100 MeV/c (5 MeV) Pbar 5 keV Deceleration Stoch., electron Cooling ELENA will provide ultra-low energy phase-space compressed beam enhancing number of usable pbars by up to 4 orders of magnitude 3.5 GeV/c ~10-4 efficiency: 99.99% lost

  7. ELENA Details: Feasibility Study by CERN ELENA basic parameters ELENA Layout

  8. Proposed TRIUMF contributions • Build upon successful LHC collaboration • Low energy beam transport lines • Injection/ejection kickers • Actual level of contributions depends • Maximum: Capital ~$1-2 M + Manpower • Minimum: Consultation to AD team

  9. Low Energy Beam Lines • CERN Study: “Beam transport of 100 keV beams will not be an easy task” • AD team is asking for assistance • CERN is HIGH energy lab; ISOLDE 30 yrs old • Influence of strong stray B fields from trap magnets • TRIUMF Beam Dynamics Group (Baartman et al): state-of-art beam line expertise with and ISAC, experience for B shield with H- line • IDEAL MATCH!

  10. Mike Barnes Leading ELENA kicker design Similar to AGS kicker designed by TRIUMF Expertise with NSERC funded research Power semiconductors Injection/Ejection Kickers

  11. ELENA Status • LOI to CERN by AD Users (2005) • Feasibility Study by CERN AB Div (Draft 30+ pg) • CERN “White Paper”, approved June 2007: • ELENA in “4th theme” --- “to be partially funded by CERN with external contributions” • CERN funds earmarked for 4th theme from 2010 • York Atomic Group attempted CFI capital ~2 MCHF for ELENA (2006, unsuccessful)

  12. ELENA-Canada Working Group • Collaboration of Canadian Antimatter Physics Community related to 3 experiments at CERN-AD (~20 physicists) • ALPHA • ATRAP • ASACUSA • Large University components, in fields less represented at TRIUMF (AMO, Low Temp, Cond. Matter)

  13. ELENA Canada Working Group TRIUMF Accelerator Division Rick Baartman, Mike Barnes (at CERN), Fred Jones University of British Columbia Walter Hardy, David Jones University of Calgary Rob Thompson Simon Fraser University Mike Hayden TRIUMF Science Division Pierre Amaudruz, Makoto Fujiwara, Dave Gill, Leonid Kurchaninov, Konstantin Olchanski, Art Olin, James Storey York University Matthew George, Eric Hessels, Scott Menary, Cody Storry, Matthew Weel Windsor University Gordon Drake

  14. Summary • Physics case clear and strong • Canadians playing leading roles in the AD experiments: ~1/4 of ALPHA and ATRAP • ELENA up to 104 increase in usable pbars • TRIUMF can make focused, yet visible contributions • By doing so, it will strengthen its user base by bringing in active university researchers • As national accelerator research center, this is an opportunity which should not be missed