Upload
ralf-stafford
View
220
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Gabrielse
High Precision, Low Energy Testsof the Standard Model and Its Symmetries
Gerald Gabrielse, Leverett Professor of Physics, Harvard UniversitySpokesperson of the CERN ATRAP Collaboration
Supported by US NSF and AFOSR. Antiprotons from CERN
Testing the Most Precise Prediction of the Standard ModelElectron magnetic moment
Testing Standard Model Extensions (e.g. Supersymmetry) Electron electric dipole moment
Testing the Symmetries of the Standard Model Q/M for the antiproton and proton Antiproton and proton magnetic moments Positron and electron magnetic moments (underway) Antihydrogen and hydrogen structure (still in the future)
Comparing Antimatter and Mater Gravity Gravitational Redshift of the Antiproton and Proton
Gabrielse
Low Energy Particle Physics
70 mK, lowest storage energyfor any charged particles
2p2M c
LEAR and AD
TRAP
1010
4.2 K0.3 meV
AMO Physics, Particle Physics, Plasma Physics
methods and funding goals and facility can’t avoid
Gabrielse
Gabrielse
Electron Magnetic Dipole Moment
• Most precisely measured property of an elementary particle
• Most precise prediction of the standard model
• Most precise confrontation of theory and experiment
• Greatest triumph of the standard model
Gabrielse
The Amazing Electron
/ 2
Sd d
Magnetic dipole moment: What about electric dipole?
/ 2
S
Electron orbits give atoms their size, but the electron itselfmay actually have “no size”
2* 10.3 /m TeV c202 10R m mass of “ingredients” is 20 million times more than the mass 0.5 MeV/c2
Electron has angular momentum (spin) even though it has nosize and nothing is rotating: 2
2~
S m R
IA R
Gabrielse
Standard Model Prediction
essentiallyexact
2 3 4 5
2 4 6 8 101 ...
aB
hadronic weak new physics
C C C C C
a a
1Dirac
QED
Hadronic
Weak weaka smaller
2
e
m
2
0
1 1Fine structure constant:
4 137
e
c
Gabrielse
Probing 10th Order and Hadronic Terms
Dirac
QED
Gabrielse
David Hanneke G.G. Shannon Fogwell
Gabrielse
Need Good Students and Some Time
Elise Novitski Joshua Dorr Shannon Fogwell Hogerheide David Hanneke Brian Odom, Brian D’Urso, Steve Peil, Dafna Enzer, Kamal Abdullah
Ching-hua Tseng Joseph Tan
N$F
20 years8 theses
Gabrielse
Cylindrical Penning Trap
• Electrostatic quadrupole potential good near trap center• Control the radiation field inhibit spontaneous emission by 200x
(Invented for this purpose: G.G. and F. C. MacKintosh; Int. J. Mass Spec. Ion Proc. 57, 1 (1984)
2 2 2~ 2V z x y
Gabrielse
150 GHzcf
Tesla6B
One Electron Quantum Cyclotron
n = 0
n = 1n = 2n = 3
n = 4
0.1 m
2y
0.1 m
2
7.2 kelvinch
Need lowtemperature
cyclotron motionT << 7.2 K
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
Trap withcharges
Gabrielse
Quantum Measurement of the Electron Magnetic Moment
Spin flip energy: 2s B B
2c B
eBB
m Cyclotron energy:
s
c B
Bohr magneton2
e
m
Need to resolve the quantum states of the cyclotron motion Relativistic shift is 1 part in 109 per quantum level
/ 2
S
(the magnetometer)
( 1/ 2)s s cE m n
Gabrielse
Quantum Jump Spectroscopy
• one electron in a Penning trap• lowest cyclotron and spin states
“In the dark” excitation turn off all detection and cooling drives during excitation
QND – quantum non-demolition detection
s
c B
Gabrielse
Application of Cavity QED
decay time (s)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
nu
mb
er
of
n=
1 t
o n
=0 d
ecays
0
10
20
30
time (s)
0 100 200 300
ax
ial fr
eq
ue
nc
y s
hif
t (H
z)
-3
0
3
6
9
12
15
Y A
xis
2
t = 16 s
excite, measure time in excited state
Inhibited Spontaneous Emission
many other new methods
Gabrielse
Electron Magnetic Moment Determined to 3 x 10-13
132.8 10
(improved measurement is underway)
Most precisely measured property of an elementary particle
Gabrielse
from measured fine structure constant
GabrielseFrom Freeman Dyson – One Inventor of QED
Dear Jerry,
... I love your way of doing experiments, and I am happy to congratulate you for this latest triumph. Thank you for sending the two papers.
Your statement, that QED is tested far more stringently than its inventors could ever have envisioned, is correct. As one of the inventors, I remember that we thought of QED in 1949 as a temporary and jerry-built structure, with mathematical inconsistencies and renormalized infinities swept under the rug. We did not expect it to last more than ten years before some more solidly built theory would replace it. We expected and hoped that some new experiments would reveal discrepancies that would point the way to a better theory. And now, 57 years have gone by and that ramshackle structure still stands. The theorists … have kept pace with your experiments, pushing their calculations to higher accuracy than we ever imagined. And you still did not find the discrepancy that we hoped for. To me it remains perpetually amazing that Nature dances to the tune that we scribbled so carelessly 57 years ago. And it is amazing that you can measure her dance to one part per trillion and find her still following our beat.
With congratulations and good wishes for more such beautiful experiments, yours ever, Freeman.
Gabrielse
Test for Physics Beyond the Standard Model
2* 360 /m
m GeV ca
Does the electron have internal structure?
2* 1 /m
m TeV ca
limited by the uncertainty in independent value
if our uncertaintywas the only limit
2* 10.3 /m TeV c LEP contact interaction limitNot bad for an experiment done at 100 mK, but LEP does better
*m total mass of particles bound together to form electron
195 10R m
202 10R m
192 10R m
:1 (2
) SM Hadronic WeaQED NewPh cB
ysi skag
aa
> 20,000,000 electron masses of binding energy
Gabrielse
Gabrielse
Electron Electric Dipole Moment (EDM)
• Most precise test of extensions to the standard model• 12 times more precise than previous measurements
/ 2
Sd d
Magnetic moment: Electric dipole moment:
/ 2
S
Well measured Does this also exist?
Gabrielse
Particle EDM Requires Both P and T Violation
/ 2
Sd d
Magnetic moment: Electric dipole Moment:
/ 2
S
If reality is invariant under parity transformations P d = 0P
T If reality is invariant under time reversal transformations T d = 0
Gabrielse
Standard Model of Particle Physics Predicts a Non-zero Electron EDM
Standard model: d ~ 10-38 e-cm
Too small to measure by orders of magnitude best measurement: d ~ 2 x 10-27 e-cm
CKM matrix relates to d, s, b quarks(Cabibbo-Kabayashi-Maskawa matrix)
Weak interaction couples quark pairs (generations)
almost the unit matrix
four-looplevel inperturbationtheory
GabrielseExtensions to the Standard Model
Much Bigger, Measureable Electron EDM
Low order contribution larger moment
Low order contribution vanishes
From Fortson, Sandars and Barr, Physics Today, 33 (June 2003)
An example
Gabrielse
Improved Electron Electric Dipole Momentand What is Next
Gerald GabrielseLeverett Professor Physics, Harvard University
Science 343, 269 (2014)
Advanced Cold Molecule EDM
NSF, and NIST
Gabrielse
ACME Collaboration
GeraldGabrielse(Harvard)
DavidDeMille(Yale)
John Doyle (Harvard)
Brendon O’Leary Paul Hess Jacob Baron Elizabeth Petrik
Adam West
Ben Spaun Chris Panda Nick Hutzler
Joint effort of 3 research groups
Earlier: Amar Vutha, Yulia Gurevich, Emil Kirilov, Ivan Kozyreyv, Wes Campbell
ACMEPhD
Gabrielse
Before Our ACME Measurement of Electron EDM
ACME aspirationfor first 5 years
BeforeACME
W. Bernreuther, M. Suzuki, Rev. Mod. Phys. 63, 313 (1991)
Gabrielse
How to Measure an Electron EDM
Put the EDM in an Electric Field
H d E
bigger is better
Measure the energy shift for the system
GabrielseCannot Use Electric Field Directly
on an Electron or Proton
Simple E and B can be used for neutron EDM measurement (neutron has magnetic moment but no net charge)
Electric field would accelerate an electron out of the apparatus
Electron EDM are done within atoms and molecules(first molecular ion measurement is now being attempted)
Gabrielse
Schiff Theorem – for Electron in an Atom or Molecule
Schiff (1963) – no atomic or molecular EDM (i.e. linear Stark effect)• from electron edm• nonrelativistic quantum mechanics limit
Sandars (1965) – can get atomic or molecular EDM (i.e. linear Stark effect)
• from electron edm• relativistic quantum mechanics• get significant enhancement (D >> d) for large Z
Commins, Jackson, DeMille (2007) – intuitive explanation Schiff
Lorentz contraction of the electron EDM in lab frame
Schiff, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 2194 (1963);
Sandars, Phys. Rev. Lett. 14, 194 (1965); ibid 22, 290 (1966).
Commins, Jackson, DeMille, Am. J. Phys. 75, 532 (2007).
Gabrielse
Why Use a Molecule? To Make Largest Possible Electric Field on Electron
Tl atom (best EDM limit till YbF)123 kV/cm E 72 MV/cmlab effE
ThO molecule100 V/cm E 100 V/cmlab effE G
Molecule can be more easily polarized using nearby energy levels with opposite parity (not generally available in atoms)
Gabrielse
Still, the EDM Gives Tiny Shift of Energy Levels18
27
30
7 10
7 10
7 10
E eV
GeV
TeV
Not so easy to resolve
Example is for an electron edm equal the ACME upper limit.
To detect let a prepared wave function evolve for time T
| (0) |1 | 2 | (T) |1 | 2ie
ET
large as possible
6 31.1 11 10 0.6 10 degreesT ms
2 mHz
Gabrielse
Detect a Small Phase Shift
1 1
2
i om e m ( )11 1
2
i om e m
( B d E)
set by choiceof dark state
set by choice of direction ofthe first of the two orthogonaldetection laser polarizations
timein E, B
Example is for an electron edm equal the ACME upper limit.
6 31.1 11 10 0.6 10 degreesT ms
x
y
xy
Gabrielse
Experiment in Two Labs – 100 Meters Separated
Harvard Jefferson BuildingHarvard LISE Building
Lasers, Iodine Clock, Comb
ThO Sourceand InteractionChamber(2 floors down)100 m optical fibers
Gabrielse
ThO Molecular Beam
MolecularBeamSource
Pulsed YAG
Molecule TrajectoryPrep Lasers
Probe Lasers
Pulse Tube Cooler
“Interaction Region”: E-field plates inside, B-field shields and coils outside
Lasers 100m away
34
Gabrielse
Magnetic Field Coils and Shielding
mu metalendplates
200 mG with uniformity of 10-3 over 26 cm
Cos(theta)coils to providetransverseB field
ThO beam
Interactionchamberinside
5 shields(no shown)
~ 10-5
shielding
Gabrielse
Detect the Tiny Phase Shift Interference
1 1
2
i om e m ( )11 1
2
i om e m
( B d E)
set by choiceof dark state
set by choice of direction ofthe first of the two orthogonaldetection laser polarizations
maximize sensitivity to 6d E 11 10
Gabrielse
coldThO
source
E
electric field plates lightdetector
apparatus control and data acquisition
Detecting an EDM
magnetic field
B
ground state superposition evolve: E + edm
combine emit
Gabrielse
Parity sum (NEB)
Derived quantities
+ + + Bnr g m t + θnr
+ + - B0 g m t
+ - + Bleak g m t
+ - - 0
- + + Bnr Dg m t
- + - B0 Dg m t
- - + de Eeff t
- - - B0 η Enr m t
Total Phase Equation:
block (~1 min)
block (~1 min)
block (~1 min)
phas
e (r
ad)
phas
e (r
ad)
phas
e (r
ad)
3 ± 5 x 10-5 rad
392 ± 5 x 10-5 rad
??? ± 5 x 10-5 rad
single block10 blocks averaged
𝜙 (𝑁 ,𝐸 ,𝐵 )=(𝑔+Δ𝑔|𝑁|) (𝐵0+𝐵𝑛𝑟|�̂�|+𝐵𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑘|�̂�|)𝜇𝐻 𝜏+𝑑𝑒𝐸𝑒𝑓𝑓 |�̂�||�̂�|
Gabrielse
Parity sum (NEB)
Derived quantities
+ + + Bnr g m t + θnr
+ + - B0 g m t
+ - + Bleak g m t
+ - - 0
- + + Bnr Dg m t
- + - B0 Dg m t
- - + de Eeff t
- - - B0 η Enr m tblock (~1 min)
block (~1 min)
phas
e (r
ad)
phas
e (r
ad)
4 ± 5 x 10-5 rad
-1 ± 5 x 10-5 rad
block (~1 min)
phas
e (r
ad)
-1530 ± 5 x 10-5 rad
single block10 blocks averaged
block (~1 min)
phas
e (r
ad)
-2 ± 5 x 10-5 rad
phas
e (r
ad)
-3590 ± 5 x 10-5 rad
Gabrielse
GabrielseConstraining New Physics on the 1 to 3 TeV Scale
prefactor
for weak interactions ~4/137
couples to weak interaction via n=1 or n=2 loop diagrams3 TeV 1 TeV
difficult to suppressnew CP violating phase
mass scale of new particles
Probing same mass scale as the LHC
conservative
Gabrielse
We need molecular theory to get the effective electric field
We actually constrain the EDM and CS
Assuming d=0
Gabrielse
New ACME Electron EDM Measurement
Do NOT quote our hopes
till we realize them!!!
New ACME Result
Gabrielse
How Big is 8 x 10-29 e cm?
earth-sized polarization cloud
around electron(scale classical electron radius)
How sensitive was our princessto the hidden pea?
Shift in earth center by 2 nm
Scale size of the polarization cloudaround the electron earth
Gabrielse
Relationship to LHC Physics
The LHC is exciting and important but EDMs also play a role• should get an improved electron EDM on the LHC time scale
• If the LHC sees new particles, is CP violation involved?• If the LHC sees nothing, EDM game is the only one in town
• Would be great to use LHC results and ours together to see what we have learned together about Standard Model extensions
Gabrielse
https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/pub/AtlasPublic/CombinedSummaryPlots/AtlasSearchesSUSY_SUSY2013.pdf
Gabrielse
Gabrielse
Testing the Standard Model’s Fundamental Symmetry
and
Comparing Antimatter-Matter Gravity
Gabrielse
Single Particle MeasurementsHave Three Big Advantages
Can be done with antiparticles
Can reach a much higher precision
Direct measurement same measurement and apparatus is used with a particle and antiparticle
Gabrielse
Most Stringent Tests of the Standard Model (and Gravity) with Antiprotons
Q/M of Antiproton and Proton – most stringent test of the Standard Model’s CPT theorem with baryons Comparison of Antiproton and Proton Gravity
680 Times Improved Comparision of the Antiproton and ProtonMagnetic Moments
Gabrielse
Embarrassing, Unsolved Mystery:How did our Matter Universe
Survive Cooling After the Big Bang?
Big bang equal amounts of matter and antimatter created during hot time
As universe cools antimatter and matter annihilate
Big Questions:
• How did any matter survive?
• How is it that we exist?
Our experiments are looking for evidence of any way that antiparticles and particles may differ
Gabrielse
Our “Explanations” are Not so Satisfactory
Baryon-Antibaryon Asymmetry in Universe is Not Understood
Standard “Explanation”• CP violation• Violation of baryon number• Thermodynamic non-equilibrium
Alternate• CPT violation• Violation of baryon number• Thermo. equilib.Bertolami, Colladay, Kostelecky, PottingPhys. Lett. B 395, 178 (1997)
Why did a universe made of matter survive the big bang?Makes sense look for answers to such fundamental questionsin the few places that we can hope to do so very precisely.
Bigger problem: don’t understand dark energy within 120 orders of magnitude
Gabrielse
Why Compare H and H (or P and P)?
Reality is Invariant – symmetry transformationsP parityCP charge conjugation, parityCPT charge conjugation, parity, and time reversal
CPT Symmetry Particles and antiparticles have
• same mass• opposite charge
Atom and anti-atom have same structure
Looking for Surprises• simple systems• extremely high accuracy• comparisons will be convincing
• same magnetic moment• same mean life
• reasonable effort • FUN
_ _
Gabrielse
Comparing the CPT Tests Warning – without CPT violation models it is hard to compare
CPT TestAccuracy
MeasurementAccuracy
FreeGift
K0 K0
Mesons
2 x 10-18 2 x 10-3 1015
e+ e-
Leptons2 x 10-12 2 x 10-9 103
P Pbaryons
9 x 10-11 9 x 10-11 1_
_
improve withantihydrogen
3 fu
ndam
enta
lly
diff
eren
t typ
es o
f pa
rtic
les
Gabrielse
I Came to CERN First in 1986to Compare the Antiproton and the Proton
Started cold antiproton and antihydrogen physics
Now a dedicated storage ring and 6 international collaboration (still amazes me)
Gabrielse
Accumulating Low Energy Antiprotons:Basic Ideas and Demonstrations (1986 – 2000)
• Slow antiprotons in matter• Capture antiprotons in flight• Electron cooling 4.2 K• 5 x 10-17 Torr
TRAP Collaboration at CERN’s LEAR
Now used by 5 collaborations at the CERN AD
ATRAP, ALPHA, ASACUSA,AEGIS, BASE
10-10
energy reduction
magneticfield
+ __
1 cm
21 MeVantiprotons
Gabrielse
Highest Precision Test of Baryon CPT Invariance
/ (antiproton)0.99999999991(9)
/ (proton)
q m
q m
by TRAP at CERN
(most precise result of CERN’s antiproton program)
Goal at the AD: Make CPT test that approach exceed this precision
119 10 90 ppt
Gabrielse
We Improved the Comparison of Antiproton and Proton by ~106
G. Gabrielse, A. Khabbaz, D.S. Hall, C. Heimann, H. Kalinowsky, W. Jhe; Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3198 (1999).
100antiprotonsand protons
/ (antiproton)0.99999999991(9)
/ (proton)
q m
q m
119 10 90ppt
56 10
most stringent CPT test with baryons
Gabrielse
Seek to Improve Lepton and Baryon CPT Tests
ATRAP members
2 2[ ] [[H] 1 /[ ] [ ] [
[H]
]
[ ] [ ] [
]
] [1[ /] ]
qm e q e m ep M p
q p Mm e q e m pe
R
R
antiprotonmoment
Gabrielse
Gabrielse
Direct Comparison ofAntimatter and Matter Gravity
antimatter matterg g
acceleration due to gravityfor antimatter
acceleration due to gravityfor matter
Does antimatter and matter accelerate at the same ratein a gravitational field?
Gabrielse
The Most Precise Experimental Answer is “Yes” to at lease a precision of 1 part per million
Experiment: TRAP Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3198 (1999).
23( 1)c
c
U
c
for tensor gravity(would be 1 for scalar gravity)
Hughes and Holzscheiter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 854 (1991).
Gravitational red shift for a clock: 2/ /g h c
Antimatter and matter clocks run at different rates if g is different for antimatter and matter
grav. pot. rnergy differencebetween empty flat space timeand inside of hypercluster of galaxies
10 610 1 ( 10 )c
c
Gabrielse
Gravity and Antihydrogen
Gabrielse
May be Hard to Get the Part per Million Precisionof the Redshift Limit
with Antihydrogen and Hydrogen
10 610 1 ( 10 )c
c
Gravitational redshift:
ALPHA trapped antihydrogen released (2013): 110
antimatter matterg g
Worthy goal for AEGIS and GBAR can they get a part per million
(108 times less precise)
Gabrielse
Sometimes It is Said that this Redshift Measurement is not so Valid
Because it “Assumes CPT Invariance”
• Does not assume CPT invariances in the gravity sector of course
• Only assumes that CPT violations in the Standard Model (if they exist) do not cancel the CPT violations in gravity (if they exist)
• Does not seem likely to me that CPT violations in the Standard Model would be just the right size to cancel differences in gravitational redshifts of the antiproton and proton (at our location in space-time).
Gabrielse
Antiproton Magnetic Moment
Gabrielse
Proton and Antiproton Magnetic Momentsare Much Smaller than the Electron Moment
Harder: nuclear magneton rather than Bohr magneton
Gabrielse
Earlier contributions
Phys. Rev. Lett. 180, 153001 (2012)
Later measurement with similar methods
Gabrielse
Gabrielse
Resonance Linesto Determine the “Two” Frequencies
square of extrawidth
Brown-GabrielseInvariance Theorem
Gabrielse
First One-Particle Measurement of the Antiproton Magnetic moment
680timeslowerthan
previous
Gabrielse
680 – Fold Improved Precision
ASACUSA
680
plausibleaspiration
2013
ATRAP, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2013).
Gabrielse
Proton Spin Flip Report
Similar proton result from Mainz group in same issue
Gabrielse
Gabrielse
Antihydrogen Hope for the Future
Note: no scientifically interesting tests of fundamental symmetrieshave yet taken place with antihydrogen – beware the hype
Gabrielse
Proposal to Trap Cold Antihydrogen – 1986
“For me, the most attractive way ... would be to capture the antihydrogen in a neutral particle trap ... The objective would be to then study the properties of a small number of [antihydrogen] atoms confined in the neutral trap for a long time.”
Gerald Gabrielse, 1986 Erice Lecture (shortly after first pbar trapping) In Fundamental Symmetries, (P.Bloch, P. Paulopoulos, and R. Klapisch, Eds.) p. 59, Plenum, New York (1987).
• Produce cold antihydrogen from cold antiprotons
• Trap cold antihydrogen• Use accurate laser spectroscopy to compare
antihydrogen and hydrogen
“When antihydrogen is formed in an ion trap, the neutral atoms will no longer be confined and will thus quickly strike the trap electrodes. Resulting annihilations of the positron and antiproton could be monitored. ..."
Use trapped antihydrogen to measure antimatter gravity
Gabrielse
Most Trapped Antihydrogen in Its Ground State
5 +/- 1 ground state atoms simultaneously trapped
ATRAP, “Trapped Antihydrogen inIts Ground State”, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 113002 (2012)
Gabrielse
ATRAP Collaboration
Gabrielse
Ultimate Goal: Hydrogen 1s – 2s Spectroscopy
(Haensch, et al., Max Planck Soc., Garching)http://www.mpq.mpg.de/~haensch/hydrogen/h.html
Many fewer antihydrogen atoms will be available
(or similar tests of ground state hyperfine structure)
Gabrielse
Two Methods Produce Slow Antihydrogen
1. In a nested Penning trap, during positron cooling of antiprotons
Device and technique – ATRAP Used to produce slow antihydrogen – ATHENA and ATRAP
Variations: Basic (ATRAP initially, ATHENA-ALPHA) Driven (ATRAP before 2007) Adiabatic well depth change (ATRAP 2007)
2. Laser-controlled resonant charge exchange
ATRAP
GabrielseAnti-H Method 1: Nested Penning Trap 3-Body “Recombination”
Nested Penning Trap 3-Body “Recombination”
Gabrielse
e+
p
Positron Cooling of Antiprotonsin a Nested Penning Trap
TRAP/ATRAP Develops the Nested Penning Trap Proposed nested trap as a way to make antihydrogen "Antihydrogen Production Using Trapped Plasmas" G. Gabrielse, L. Haarsma, S. Rolston and W. Kells Physics Letters A 129, 38 (1988)
"Electron-Cooling of Protons in a Nested Penning Trap" D.S. Hall, G. Gabrielse Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1962 (1996)
"First Positron Cooling of Antiprotons" ATRAP Phys. Lett. B 507, 1 (2001)
Gabrielse
Anti-H Method II: Antihydrogen Via Laser-Controlled Resonant Charge Exchange
852 nm
510.6 nm
ATRAP, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 263401 (2004)
Gabrielse
1 Collaboration 4 CollaborationsFollowing the 1986 plan:
cold antiprotons
cold antihydrogen
trap antihydrogen
precise laser spectroscopy
ATRAP and ALPHA
Variations
colder antihydrogen
extract from trap
laser spectroscopyASACUSA AEGIS
interferometry
1986 2012
Gabrielse
Gabrielse
First Generation Penning-Ioffe Apparatus
Gabrielse
ATRAP – observed the production of antihydrogen atoms in the fields of a Ioffe trap (PRL 2008) Less than 20 atoms were being trapped per trial
ALPHA – did similar production the following year
ATRAP ALPHA Try to make more atoms Try to detect fewer atoms
two directions
0.7 +/- 0.3 per trial5 +/- 1 per trial
Gabrielse
1.2 K Electrodes and Millions of Antiprotons
1.2 K UsingPumped Helium
Gabrielse
• Lowered electrode temperature to 1.2 K • Started measuring antiproton temperatures• Developed new pbar cooling methods
ATRAP More Antiprotons, Much Colder,More Simultaneously Trapped Atoms
First antiprotons cold enough to centrifugally separate from the electrons that cool them Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 213002 (2010).
Two new cooling methods for antiprotons -- embedded electron cooling -- adiabatic cooling Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 073002 (2011).
3 million antiprotons at 3.5 K
Gabrielse
Gabrielse
Particle Physics at Low EnergyGerald Gabrielse
Leverett Professor of Physics, Harvard UniversitySpokesperson of the CERN ATRAP Collaboration
Supported by US NSF and AFOSR
Testing the Most Precise Prediction of the Standard ModelElectron magnetic moment
Testing standard model extensions Electron electric dipole moment
Testing the Symmetries of the Standard Model Q/M for the antiproton and proton Antiproton and proton magnetic moments Positron and electron magnetic moments (underway) Antihydrogen and hydrogen structure (still in far future)
Comparing Antimatter and Mater Gravity Gravitational Redshift of the Antiproton and Proton
Gabrielse
SummaryLow energy particle physics produces the most stringent tests of the standard model, its extensions and its fundamental symmetries - electron magnetic dipole moment - electron electric dipole moment - comparison of antiproton and proton charge-to-mass ratios - comparison of antiproton and proton gravity - comparison of antiproton and proton magnetic moments
Antihydrogen – now have cold trapped antihydrogen atoms in their ground states, but not enough atoms yet – no interesting tests of fundamental symmetries yet, but big hopes for the future