Presentation on theme: "Antimatter Physics Opportunities with ELENA at CERN-AD"— Presentation transcript:
1 Antimatter Physics Opportunities with ELENA at CERN-AD ELENA-Canada Working GroupTRIUMF Town Hall MeetingAug 1-3, 2007
2 This talk is NOT aboutRequest for General Infrastructure Support for External ProgramSupport for external experiments (e.g, G0, Qweak, ALPHA) an important part of present Five Year PlanShould remain so for 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-ADDramatic enhancement of antimatter physics opportunitiesNo parallel sessions at this meeting --- many people running the experiment at CERN or awayHave been doing our home work for the past year; submitted “white paper” to TRIUMF/TUEC
4 Physics Case: Simple and Clear Comparisons of simplest atom (H) and anti-atom (Hbar) with highest possible precisionGiven 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 GravityCERN Review: “no guarantee, but imperative duty”Technically very challenging. Similarities with ion traps, UCN, but antiparticles difficult
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 magnitudeX 10 more stringent CPT test than K0 in absolute energy scale (within effective field theory)With laser coolingDirect test on gravity onantimatterPrecision and feasibility fundamentally limited by number of HbarsVertical Hbar trapHDoppler limit: 2.4 mK, recoil limit 1.3 mKVertical height ~1 mfor Hbar at 2 mK
6 AD + ELENA AD: 3.5 GeV/c 100 MeV/c (5 MeV) a unique deceleration & cooling ringDegrader: 5 MeV 5 keV~10-4 trapping efficiency: >99.9% pbars lost!ELENA: 5 MeV 100 keVDeceleration and electron coolingUp to 4 orders of magnitude increase in Hbar production efficiency!
7 Why ELENA?Degrader foilTrapADPbar100 MeV/c(5 MeV)5 keVDecelerationStoch., electronCooling3.5 GeV/cDecelerationE-coolingELENA100 keV5 keV5 MeV~10-4 efficiency:99.99% lostELENA will provide ultra-low energy phase-space compressed beam enhancing number of usable pbars by up to 4 orders of magnitude
8 ELENA Details: Feasibility Study by CERN Momentum, MeV/c100 – 13.7Energy, MeV5.3 – 0.1Circumference, m26.062Emittances at 100 keV, π mm mrad5 / 5Intensity limitation by space chargeMaximal incoherent tune shift0.10Bunch length at 100 keV, m / ns1.3 / 300Expected cooling time at 100 keV, sec1Required vacuum* for Δε=0.5π mm mrad/s,Torr3*10-12IBS blow up times for bunched beam*(εx,y=5π mm mrad, Δp/p=1 10-3), s1.1 / -9.1 / 0.85* No electron cooling is assumedELENA basic parametersELENA Layout
9 Proposed TRIUMF contributions Build upon successful LHC collaborationLow energy beam transport linesInjection/ejection kickersActual level of contributions dependsMaximum: Capital ~$1-2 M + ManpowerMinimum: Consultation to AD team
10 Low Energy Beam LinesCERN Study: “Beam transport of 100 keV beams will not be an easy task”AD team is asking for assistanceCERN is HIGH energy lab; ISOLDE 30 yrs oldInfluence of strong stray B fields from trap magnetsTRIUMF Beam Dynamics Group (Baartman et al): state-of-art beam line expertise with and ISAC, experience for B shield with H- lineIDEAL MATCH!
11 Injection/Ejection Kickers Injection kickerRequired MeV30 mradMagnetic length505 mmIntegrated magnetic field0.01 T•mMax. rise/fall time(1% to 99%)300 nsFlat top400 nsGood field region,50mm x 50 mmMagnet typeTransmission-lineVacuum tube connectors100-mm Flange (od)PFN typeCableSystem impedance16.7 ΩEjection kickerRequired keV275 mm0.002 T•m1000 nsGood field region50 mm x 50 mmLumped inductanceFlange for ¢ =100mmPFN impedance25 ΩMike BarnesLeading ELENA kicker designSimilar to AGS kicker designed by TRIUMFExpertise with NSERC funded researchPower semiconductors
12 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 2010York Atomic Group attempted CFI capital ~2 MCHF for ELENA (2006, unsuccessful)
13 ELENA-Canada Working Group Collaboration of Canadian Antimatter Physics Community related to 3 experiments at CERN-AD (~20 physicists)ALPHAATRAPASACUSALarge University components, in fields less represented at TRIUMF (AMO, Low Temp, Cond. Matter)
14 ELENA Canada Working Group TRIUMF Accelerator DivisionRick Baartman, Mike Barnes (at CERN), Fred JonesUniversity of British ColumbiaWalter Hardy, David JonesUniversity of CalgaryRob ThompsonSimon Fraser UniversityMike HaydenTRIUMF Science DivisionPierre Amaudruz, Makoto Fujiwara, Dave Gill, Leonid Kurchaninov, Konstantin Olchanski, Art Olin, James StoreyYork UniversityMatthew George, Eric Hessels, Scott Menary, Cody Storry, Matthew WeelWindsor UniversityGordon Drake
15 Summary Physics case clear and strong Canadians playing leading roles in the AD experiments: ~1/4 of ALPHA and ATRAPELENA up to 104 increase in usable pbarsTRIUMF can make focused, yet visible contributionsBy doing so, it will strengthen its user base by bringing in active university researchersAs national accelerator research center, this is an opportunity which should not be missed