Presentation on theme: "Antimatter Physics Opportunities with ELENA at CERN-AD ELENA-Canada Working Group TRIUMF Town Hall Meeting Aug 1-3, 2007."— Presentation transcript:
Antimatter Physics Opportunities with ELENA at CERN-AD ELENA-Canada Working Group TRIUMF Town Hall Meeting Aug 1-3, 2007
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 See Des Ramsays report to TUG 5YP Committee
This talk is about: Proposal for TRIUMFs 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
Physics Case: Simple and Clear Comparisons of simplest atom (H) and anti-atom (Hbar) with highest possible precision 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, 1 st Antimatter Gravity –CERN Review: no guarantee, but imperative duty Technically very challenging. Similarities with ion traps, UCN, but antiparticles difficult
Examples: with1000 trapped Hbars precision ( f~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 K 0 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 H Vertical height ~1 m for Hbar at 2 mK Vertical Hbar trap
AD + ELENA AD: 3.5 GeV/c 100 MeV/c (5 MeV) a unique deceleration & cooling ring Degrader: 5 MeV 5 keV ~10 -4 trapping efficiency: >99.9% pbars lost! ELENA: 5 MeV 100 keV Deceleration and electron cooling Up to 4 orders of magnitude increase in Hbar production efficiency!
Why ELENA? ELENA will provide ultra-low energy phase-space compressed beam enhancing number of usable pbars by up to 4 orders of magnitude Deceleration Stoch., electron Cooling Pbar AD Degrader foil 3.5 GeV/c 100 MeV/c (5 MeV) 5 keV Trap ~10 -4 efficiency: 99.99% lost Deceleration E-cooling ELENA 100 keV 5 keV 5 MeV
ELENA Details: Feasibility Study by CERN Momentum, MeV/c 100 – 13.7 Energy, MeV 5.3 – 0.1 Circumference, m Emittances at 100 keV, π mm mrad5 / 5 Intensity limitation by space charge Maximal incoherent tune shift0.10 Bunch length at 100 keV, m / ns1.3 / 300 Expected cooling time at 100 keV, sec1 Required vacuum* for Δε=0.5π mm mrad/s,Torr3*10-12 IBS blow up times for bunched beam* (εx,y=5π mm mrad, Δp/p=1 10-3), s 1.1 / -9.1 / 0.85 * No electron cooling is assumed ELENA basic parameters ELENA Layout
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
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!
Injection/Ejection Kickers Mike Barnes –Leading ELENA kicker design –Similar to AGS kicker designed by TRIUMF –Expertise with NSERC funded research –Power semiconductors Injection kicker Required MeV30 mrad Magnetic length505 mm Integrated magnetic field0.01 T m Max. rise/fall time (1% to 99%) 300 ns Flat top400 ns Good field region,50mm x 50 mm Magnet typeTransmission-line Vacuum tube connectors100-mm Flange (od) PFN typeCable System impedance16.7 Ejection kicker Required keV30 mrad Magnetic length275 mm Integrated magnetic field0.002 T m Max. rise/fall time (1% to 99%) 1000 ns Flat top400 ns Good field region50 mm x 50 mm Magnet typeLumped inductance Vacuum tube connectorsFlange for ¢ =100mm PFN typeCable PFN impedance25
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 4 th theme --- to be partially funded by CERN with external contributions –CERN funds earmarked for 4 th theme from 2010 York Atomic Group attempted CFI capital ~2 MCHF for ELENA (2006, unsuccessful)
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)
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
Summary Physics case clear and strong Canadians playing leading roles in the AD experiments: ~1/4 of ALPHA and ATRAP ELENA up to 10 4 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