Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Antimatter Physics Opportunities with ELENA at CERN-AD

Similar presentations

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 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  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 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, 1st Antimatter Gravity CERN 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 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 Doppler limit: 2.4 mK, recoil limit 1.3 mK Vertical height ~1 m for Hbar at 2 mK

6 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!

7 Why ELENA? Degrader foil Trap AD Pbar 100 MeV/c (5 MeV) 5 keV Deceleration Stoch., electron Cooling 3.5 GeV/c Deceleration E-cooling ELENA 100 keV 5 keV 5 MeV ~10-4 efficiency: 99.99% lost ELENA 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/c 100 – 13.7 Energy, MeV 5.3 – 0.1 Circumference, m 26.062 Emittances at 100 keV, π mm mrad 5 / 5 Intensity limitation by space charge Maximal incoherent tune shift 0.10 Bunch length at 100 keV, m / ns 1.3 / 300 Expected cooling time at 100 keV, sec 1 Required vacuum* for Δε=0.5π mm mrad/s,Torr 3*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

9 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

10 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!

11 Injection/Ejection Kickers
Injection kicker Required MeV 30 mrad Magnetic length 505 mm Integrated magnetic field 0.01 T•m Max. rise/fall time (1% to 99%) 300 ns Flat top 400 ns Good field region, 50mm x 50 mm Magnet type Transmission-line Vacuum tube connectors 100-mm Flange (od) PFN type Cable System impedance 16.7 Ω Ejection kicker Required keV 275 mm 0.002 T•m 1000 ns Good field region 50 mm x 50 mm Lumped inductance Flange for ¢ =100mm PFN impedance 25 Ω Mike Barnes Leading ELENA kicker design Similar to AGS kicker designed by TRIUMF Expertise with NSERC funded research Power 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 2010 York 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) ALPHA ATRAP ASACUSA Large University components, in fields less represented at TRIUMF (AMO, Low Temp, Cond. Matter)

14 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

15 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

Download ppt "Antimatter Physics Opportunities with ELENA at CERN-AD"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google