Fundamentally Cool Physics with Trapped Atoms and Ions · 2019-07-18 · Fundamentally Cool Physics...

W

e

d

u

d

d

u

u

θei

θeν

~precoil

~pe ~pν

Fundamentally Cool Physics

with Trapped Atoms and Ions

Dan MelconianApril 23, 2017

Overview

Dan Melconian Tel Aviv ColloquiumApr 23, 2017

– 1

1. Fundamental symmetries

what is our current understanding?

how do we test what lies beyond?

2. TAMU Penning Trap

physics of superallowed β decay

ion trapping of proton-rich nuclei at T-REX

3. TRIUMF Neutral Atom Trap

angular correlations of polarized 37K

recent results

Scope of fundamental physics


– 2

uu

d d

ud

d uu

d du

quarks

nucleons

electrons

the atom

from the very smallest scales . . .

Scope of fundamental physics


– 2

uu

d d

ud

d uu

d du

quarks

nucleons

electrons

the atom

from the very smallest scales . . .

GeV

10–1

3×10–1010–12

2×10–13

10191015

1.67 min

109 y12×109 y

10–37 s10–44 s

10–10 s10µs

3×105 y

102

10–4

. . . to the very largest

The Standard Model


– 3

All of the known elementary particles and their interactions are

described within the framework of

The Standard Model

The Standard Model


– 3



The Standard Model

quantum + special rel ⇒ quantum field theory

The Standard Model


– 3



The Standard Model


Noether’s theorem: symmetry ⇔ conservation law

The Standard Model


– 3



The Standard Model



Maxwell’s eqns invariant under

changes in vector potential⇔

conservation of

electric charge, q

The Standard Model


– 3



The Standard Model



Maxwell’s eqns invariant under

changes in vector potential⇔

conservation of

electric charge, q

and there are other symmetries too:time ⇔ energy

space ⇔ momentum

rotations ⇔ angular momentum...

The Standard Model


– 3



The Standard Model



12 elementary particles, 4 fundamental forces

1st 2nd 3rd Q

lep

ton

s (

νee

)(

νµµ

)(

νττ

)

0−1

qu

ark

s (

ud

) (

cs

) (

tb

)

+2/3−1/3

mediator force

g strong

W±

weakZ

γ EM

The Standard Model


– 3



The Standard Modelnew



12 elementary particles, 4 fundamental forces

and 1 Higgs boson

1st 2nd 3rd Q

lep

ton

s (

νee

)(

νµµ

)(

νττ

)

0−1

qu

ark

s (

ud

) (

cs

) (

tb

)

+2/3−1/3

mediator force

g strong

W±

weakZ

γ EM

That’s all fine and dandy, but. . .


– 4

does the Standard Model work??



– 4


it predicted the existence of the W±, Z, g, c and t and now the Higgs!

is a renormalizable theory

GSW ⇒ unified the weak force with electromagnetism

QCD explains quark confinement



– 4






aµ×1010−11659000

±1 part-per-million!!(PRL 92 (2004) 161802)

aµ ≡ 12(g − 2)



– 4






aµ×1010−11659000

±1 part-per-million!!(PRL 92 (2004) 161802)

aµ ≡ 12(g − 2)

Wow . . . this is

the most precisely tested theory ever conceived!

But there are still questions . . .


– 5

parameters values: does our “ultimate” theory really need 25 arbitrary con-stants? Do they change with time?

dark matter: SM physics makes up less than 5% of the energy-matter of theuniverse!

baryon asymmetry: why more matter than anti-matter?

strong CP: do axions exist? Fine-tuning?

neutrinos: Dirac or Majorana? Mass hierarchy?

fermion generations: why three families?

weak mixing: Is the CKM matrix unitary?

parity violation: is parity maximally violated in the weak interaction? Noright-handed currents?

gravity: of course can’t forget about a quantum description of gravity!

How we all test the SM


– 6

colliders: CERN, SLAC, FNAL, BNL, KEK, DESY . . .

nuclear physics: traps, exotic beams, neutron, EDMs, 0νββ, . . .

cosmology & astrophysics: SN1987a, Big Bang nucleosynthesis, . . .

muon decay: Michel parameters: ρ, δ, η, and ξ

atomic physics: anapole moment, spectroscopy, . . .



– 6






all of these techniques are complementary and important

• different experiments probe different (new) physics

• if signal seen, cross-checks crucial!



– 6






all of these techniques are complementary and important

• different experiments probe different (new) physics

• if signal seen, cross-checks crucial!

often they are interdisciplinary

(which makes it extra fun!)

How does high-energy physics test the SM?


– 7

colliders: CERN, SLAC, FNAL, BNL, KEK, DESY, . . . .

direct search of particles

27 km

How does high-energy physics test the SM?


– 7

colliders: CERN, SLAC, FNAL, BNL, KEK, DESY, . . . .

direct search of particles

27 km

large multi-national collabs

billion $ price-tags

How does nuclear physics test the SM?


– 8



– 9

nuclear physics: radioactive ion beam facilities

indirect search via precision measurements



– 9

nuclear physics: radioactive ion beam facilities

indirect search via precision measurements

smaller collaborations

contribute to all aspects

“table-top” physics

How specifically do I plan to test the SM?


– 10

Begin by looking at the rate for β decay

d5W

dEedΩedΩνe

=

basic decay rate︷︸︸︷

G2F |Vud|

2

(2π)5peEe(A − Ee)

2



– 10

Expand to the often-quoted angular distribution of the decay:

(Jackson, Treiman and Wyld, Phys Rev 106 and Nucl Phys 4, 1957)

d5W

dEedΩedΩνe

=


G2F |Vud|

2


2ξ

(

1 +

β−ν correlation︷︸︸︷

aβν

~pe · ~pνeEeEνe

+

Fierz term︷︸︸︷

bΓme

Ee



– 10



d5W

dEedΩedΩνe

=


G2F |Vud|

2


2ξ

(

1 +


aβν

~pe · ~pνeEeEνe

+


bΓme

Ee

scalar

aβν =−|CS |

2 − |C′

S |2

|CS |2+|C′

S |2

vector

aβν =|CV |2+|C′

V |2

|CV |2+|C′

V |2



– 10



d5W

dEedΩedΩνe

=


G2F |Vud|

2


2ξ

(

1 +


aβν

~pe · ~pνeEeEνe

+


bΓme

Ee

scalar

aβν =−|CS |

2 − |C′

S |2

|CS |2+|C′

S |2

vector

aβν =|CV |2+|C′

V |2

|CV |2+|C′

V |2

aβν =|CV |

2 + |C ′V |

2 − |CS |2 − |C ′

S |2

|CV |2 + |C ′V |

2 + |CS |2 + |C ′S |

2= 1??



– 10



d5W

dEedΩedΩνe

=


G2F |Vud|

2


2ξ

(

1 +


aβν

~pe · ~pνeEeEνe

+


bΓme

Ee

aβν =|CV |

2 + |C ′V |

2 − |CS |2 − |C ′

S |2

|CV |2 + |C ′V |

2 + |CS |2 + |C ′S |

2= 1??

This correlation is quadratic in the couplings. . . not as sensitive as the

Fierz parameter, which is linear:

bF =−2ℜe(C∗

SCV + C ′∗S C

′V )

|CV |2 + |C ′V |

2 + |CS |2 + |C ′S |

2= 0??

see Gonzalez-Alonso and Naviliat-Cuncic, PRC 94, 035503 (2016)



– 10



d5W

dEedΩedΩνe

=


G2F |Vud|

2


2ξ

(

1 +


aβν

~pe · ~pνeEeEνe

+


bΓme

Ee

+〈~I〉

I·

[

Aβ~peEe

︸︷︷︸

β asym

+Bν~pνEν

︸︷︷︸

ν asym

+D~pe × ~pνEeEν

︸︷︷︸

T–violating

]

+ . . .

)

θe,i

~pe ~pν

θν,i



– 10



d5W

dEedΩedΩνe

=


G2F |Vud|

2


2ξ

(

1 +


aβν

~pe · ~pνeEeEνe

+


bΓme

Ee

+〈~I〉

I·

[

Aβ~peEe

︸︷︷︸

β asym

+Bν~pνEν

︸︷︷︸

ν asym

+D~pe × ~pνEeEν

︸︷︷︸

T–violating

]

+ . . .

)

θe,i

~pe ~pν

θν,iE.g. Aβ = −2ρ

1+ρ2

[

(1−xy)√

3(1+x2)5(1+y2)

− ρ(1−y2)5(1+y2)

]

where x ≈ (ML/MR)2− ζ

and y ≈ (ML/MR)2 + ζ

are right-handed current parameters that are zero in the

SM, and ρ ≡CAMGT

CV MF



– 10



d5W

dEedΩedΩνe

=


G2F |Vud|

2


2ξ

(

1 +


aβν

~pe · ~pνeEeEνe

+


bΓme

Ee

+〈~I〉

I·

[

Aβ~peEe

︸︷︷︸

β asym

+Bν~pνEν

︸︷︷︸

ν asym

+D~pe × ~pνEeEν

︸︷︷︸

T–violating

]

+ . . .

)

θe,i

~pe ~pν


1+ρ2

[

(1−xy)√

3(1+x2)5(1+y2)

− ρ(1−y2)5(1+y2)

]




SM, and ρ ≡CAMGT

CV MF

β-decay parameters depend on the currents mediating the

weak interaction

⇒ sensitive to new physics ⇐



– 10



d5W

dEedΩedΩνe

=


G2F |Vud|

2


2ξ

(

1 +


aβν

~pe · ~pνeEeEνe

+


bΓme

Ee

+〈~I〉

I·

[

Aβ~peEe

︸︷︷︸

β asym

+Bν~pνEν

︸︷︷︸

ν asym

+D~pe × ~pνEeEν

︸︷︷︸

T–violating

]

+ . . .

)

θe,i

~pe ~pν


1+ρ2

[

(1−xy)√

3(1+x2)5(1+y2)

− ρ(1−y2)5(1+y2)

]




SM, and ρ ≡CAMGT

CV MF

β-decay parameters depend on the currents mediating the

weak interaction

⇒ sensitive to new physics ⇐

Goal must be . 0.1% to complement LHC

Naviliat-Cuncic and Gonzalez-Alonso, Ann. Phys. 525, 600 (2013)Cirigliano, Gonzalez-Alonso and Graesser, JHEP 1302, 046 (2013)

Vos, Wilschut and Timmermans, RMP 87, 1483 (2015)

How to acheive our goal?


– 11

dud

duu

We

ν

θei

θeν

~precoil

~pe ~pν

perform a β decay experiment on

short-lived isotopes



– 11

θei

θeν

~precoil

~pe ~pν

dud

duu

We

ν



make a precision measurement of

the angular correlation parameters



– 11

θei

θeν

~precoil

~pe ~pν

dud

duu

We

ν





compare the SM predictions to obser-

vations



– 11

θei

θeν

~precoil

~pe ~pν

dud

duu

We

ν






vations

look for deviations as an indication of

new physics



– 11

θei

θeν

~precoil

~pe ~pν

dud

duu

We

ν






vations

look for deviations as an indication of

new physics

perform a nuclear measurement

– often using atomic techniques –

to test high-energy theories

C.S. Wu’s experiment – Parity violation


– 12

C.S. Wu’s experiment – Parity violation


– 12

so much scattering!

low polarization

short relaxation time

poor sample purity

pain to flip the spin

need long t1/2

Traps around the world


– 13

Many groups around the world realize the potential of using traps for

precision weak interaction studies

Fr

He

Na

K,Fr

atom traps ion traps

(Na)

Overview


– 14









recent results

T = 2 superallowed decays


– 15

β+

0+, T =2

γp

0+, T =2

N

Z Stable

T = 1

T = 2

44Cr40Ti

28S

36Ca

24Si

20Mg

32Ar

β − ν correlations

model-dependence of δC calcs seem to depend on T . . .

new cases for Vud

T = 2 superallowed decays


– 15

N

Z

β+

0+, T =2

γp

0+, T =2

vector

scalar

Stable

T = 1

T = 2

44Cr40Ti

28S

36Ca

24Si

20Mg

32Ar

β − ν correlations

model-dependence of δC calcs seem to depend on T . . .

new cases for Vud

Recall: pure Fermi decay ⇔ minimal nuclear

structure effects; decay rate is simply given by:

peEe(A − Ee)2ξ(

1 + aβν~pe · ~pνEeEν

+ bFΓme

Ee

)

β − ν correlation from 32Ar


– 16

Doppler shape of delayed proton

depends on ~pe · ~pν !vector

scalar

β − ν correlation from 32Ar


– 16

Doppler shape of delayed proton

depends on ~pe · ~pν !vector

scalar

p

32Ar

B = 3.5T

e+

detector

But why throw away useful information??


– 17

We can improve the correlation measurement

by retaining information about the β



– 17



utilize technology of Penning traps to provide a

backing-free source of localized radioactive ions!!



– 17





Ring

Electrode

Compensation

Electrode

Compensation

Electrode

Po

sitio

n-s

en

sitiv

ed

ete

cto

r

End Cap End Cap

~B



– 17





Ring

Electrode

Compensation

Electrode

Compensation

Electrode

Po

sitio

n-s

en

sitiv

ed

ete

cto

r

End Cap End Cap



– 17





A Penning trap at T-REX CI/TAMU


– 18

The Texas A&M University Penning Trap


– 19

will be the world’s most open-geometry ion trap!

uniquely suited for studying β-delayed proton decays:

β − ν correlations, ft values/Vud

mass measurements, EC studies, laser spectroscopy, . . .

re−commissioned

K150 cyclotron

production

target

BigSol

separator multi−RFQ

heavy−ion guide

TAMUTRAPto charge−breeder

and K500 cyclotron

ortho−TOF

gas−catcher

ANL−type

The Texas A&M University Penning Trap


– 19

will be the world’s most open-geometry ion trap!

uniquely suited for studying β-delayed proton decays:

β − ν correlations, ft values/Vud

mass measurements, EC studies, laser spectroscopy, . . .

re−commissioned

K150 cyclotron

ion

RIB from

cooler & buncher

HV cageASR magnet7T/210mm

source

K150/HI guide

Status in 2013


– 20

Current Status


– 21

Recent Milestones

RFQ commissioned with high efficiency [Mehlman PhD]

Current Status


– 21

Recent Milestones


Prototype (45-mm diam) trap installed

Current Status


– 21

Recent Milestones



Able to transport cooled and bunched beam through

magnet

Current Status


– 21

Recent Milestones




magnet

Began trapping off-line ions summer 2016

Current Status


– 21

Recent Milestones




magnet


Currently working on rf excitation (magnetron for

cleaning and dipole for mass measurements)

Current Status


– 21

Recent Milestones




magnet


Currently working on rf excitation (magnetron for

cleaning and dipole for mass measurements)

Connect to heavy ion guide this summer (?)

Current Status


– 21

Overview


– 22









recent results

The β+-decay of 37K


– 23

Almost as simple as 0+→ 0+:isobaric analogue decay

strong branch to g.s.

3.6697.89(11)%

4.96

6.35

3.79

6.88

7.51

7.39

5/2+ 2796 keV

3/2+ 3938 keV

3/2+ 3602 keV

5/2+ 3170 keV

3/2− 2490 keV

7/2− 1611 keV1/2+ 1410 keV

37Ar

9.7(

12)

215(

11)

9(3)

27(2

)2.

04(1

1)%

43(3

)26

3(14

)27

(4)

289(

15)

96(6

)

42.2(75)25(20)

29(4)

2.07(11)%27(2)

224(12)

11.6(13) 5.78

37K β+QEC = 6.14746(23) MeV

1.2365(9) s 3/2+



– 23

Almost as simple as 0+→ 0+:

5/2+

3/2+

3/2+

3718Ar

1.225(7) s

β+3719K

3/2+0.022%

2.07(11)%

97.99(14)%

isobaric analogue decay


polarization/alignment

mixed Fermi/Gamow-Teller

⇒ need ρ ≡ GAMGT/GV MF

to get SM prediction for correlation

parameters

get ρ from the comparative half-life: ρ2 =2Ft0

+→0+

Ft− 1



– 23


5/2+

3/2+

3/2+

3718Ar

1.225(7) s

β+3719K

3/2+0.022%

2.07(11)%

97.99(14)%







parameters


+→0+

Ft− 1

QEC : ±0.003%

BR: ±0.14%

Ft = 4562(28) ⇒

t1/2: ±0.57%

ρ = 0.5874(71)



– 23


5/2+

3/2+

3/2+

3718Ar

1.225(7) s

β+3719K

3/2+0.022%

2.07(11)%

97.99(14)%







parameters


+→0+

Ft− 1

QEC : ±0.003%

BR: ±0.14%

Ft = 4562(28) ⇒

t1/2: ±0.57%

ρ = 0.5874(71)

The lifetime limited the Ft value

and hence precision of ρ

and hence the SM predictions

of the correlation parameters



– 23


5/2+

3/2+

3/2+

3718Ar

1.225(7) s

β+3719K

3/2+0.022%

2.07(11)%

97.99(14)%







parameters


+→0+

Ft− 1

QEC : ±0.003%

BR: ±0.14%

Ft = 4562(28) ⇒

t1/2: ±0.57%

ρ = 0.5874(71)

The lifetime limited the Ft value

and hence precision of ρ

and hence the SM predictions

of the correlation parameters

so we measured the lifetime

at the CI:

a 4.4× improvement:

t1/2 =1236.51

± 0.47±0.83 ms

P. Shidling et al., Phys. Rev. C 90, 032501(R) (2014)

Angular distribution of a 32

+→ 3

2

+decay


– 24

dW ∼ 1 + aβν~pe·~pνEeEν

+ bΓm

Ee+

~I

I·

[

Aβ

~peEe

+Bν

~pνEν

+D~pe×~pνEeEν

]

Correlation Expectation

β − ν correlation: aβν = 0.6580(61)

Fierz interference parameter: bFierz = 0 (sensitive to scalars and tensors)

β asymmetry: Aβ = −0.5739(21)

ν asymmetry: Bν = −0.7791(58)

Time-violating D coefficient: D = 0 (sensitive to imaginary couplings)

...

a β−recoil observable Rslow ∼1−aβν−2calign/3 − (Aβ−Bν)

1−aβν−2calign/3 + (Aβ−Bν)= 0

specific to our geometry

Recall: measurements of these correlations to . 0.1%complement collider experiments and test the SM

Angular distribution of a 32

+→ 3

2

+decay


– 24

dW ∼ 1 + aβν~pe·~pνEeEν

+ bΓm

Ee+

~I

I·

[

Aβ

~peEe

+Bν

~pνEν

+D~pe×~pνEeEν

]

Correlation Expectation

β − ν correlation: aβν = 0.6580(61) → 0.6668(18)

Fierz interference parameter: bFierz = 0 (sensitive to scalars and tensors)

β asymmetry: Aβ = −0.5739(21) → −0.5719(7)

ν asymmetry: Bν = −0.7791(58) → −0.7703(18)

Time-violating D coefficient: D = 0 (sensitive to imaginary couplings)

...

a β−recoil observable Rslow ∼1−aβν−2calign/3 − (Aβ−Bν)

1−aβν−2calign/3 + (Aβ−Bν)= 0

specific to our geometry

Recall: measurements of these correlations to . 0.1%complement collider experiments and test the SM

(data in hand for improved branching ratios)

E.g.: Right-handed currents


– 25

The Electroweak Interaction: SU(2)L×U(1) ⇒ W±L , Z, γ



– 25


Built upon maximal parity violation:

HSM = GF Vud e(γµ − γµγ5)νe u(γµ − γµγ5)d

Vector P |Ψ〉 = −|Ψ〉

Axial − vector P |Ψ〉 = +|Ψ〉



– 25






low-energy limit of a deeper SU(2)R×SU(2)L×U(1) theory?

RHCs would affect correlation parameters


– 26

Aβ =−2ρ1+ρ2

(√35 − ρ

5

)

Bν =−2ρ1+ρ2

(√35 + ρ

5

)

and Rslow = 0



– 26

In the presence of new physics, the angular distribution

of β decay will be affected.

Aβ =−2ρ1+ρ2

(√35 − ρ

5

)

→ −2ρ1+ρ2

[

(1−xy)√

3(1+x2)5(1+y2)

− ρ(1−y2)5(1+y2)

]

Bν =−2ρ1+ρ2

(√35 + ρ

5

)

→ −2ρ1+ρ2

[

(1−xy)√

3(1+x2)5(1+y2)

+ ρ(1−y2)5(1+y2)

]

and Rslow = 0 → y2

where x ≈ (ML/MR)2 − ζ and y ≈ (ML/MR)

2 + ζ

are RHC parameters that are zero in the SM.



– 26

In the presence of new physics, the angular distribution

of β decay will be affected.

Aβ =−2ρ1+ρ2

(√35 − ρ

5

)

→ −2ρ1+ρ2

[

(1−xy)√

3(1+x2)5(1+y2)

− ρ(1−y2)5(1+y2)

]

Bν =−2ρ1+ρ2

(√35 + ρ

5

)

→ −2ρ1+ρ2

[

(1−xy)√

3(1+x2)5(1+y2)

+ ρ(1−y2)5(1+y2)

]

and Rslow = 0 → y2

where x ≈ (ML/MR)2 − ζ and y ≈ (ML/MR)

2 + ζ

are RHC parameters that are zero in the SM.

Again, goal must be . 0.1% to have an impact

Thank you, AMO physicists!!


– 27

Atomic methods have opened up a new vista in precision workand provide the ability to push β decay measurements to . 0.1%

laser-cooling and trapping (magneto-optical traps)

sub-level state manipulation (optical pumping)

characterization/diagnostics (photoionization)



– 27



σ−

σ+

I

σ−

σ+

σ−

σ+

I



– 27





– 27



Traps provide a backing-free, very cold (. 1 mK), localized

(∼ 1 mm3) source of isomerically-selective, short-lived

radioactive atoms



– 27



Traps provide a backing-free, very cold (. 1 mK), localized

(∼ 1 mm3) source of isomerically-selective, short-lived

radioactive atoms

Detect ~pβ and ~precoil

⇒ deduce ~pν event-by-event!! ⇐

The TRINAT lab


– 28

The measurement chamber


– 29

Shake-off e− detection

know decay occured from trap

Better control of OP beams

less heating, higher P

Bquad → BOP quickly: AC-MOT

better duty cycle, higher polar-

ization

Increased β/recoil solid angles

better statistics

Stronger E-field (one day. . . )

better separation of charge

states, higher statistics

...

z

x

229µm thickBe foil

(anti)Helmholtz

coils

ScintillatorBC408

90 mm

Light

Ele

ctr

on

MC

P

Pola

rization

axis

Dete

ction

axis

Recoil

MC

P

Electrostatic

hoops

LightSi-strip detector

40x40mm2x300µmSiC substrate

254µm thick

Mirror with

Outline of polarized experiment


– 30



– 30

Helmholtz

D2 MOT

anti-



– 30

20mF −2=

Helmholtz

D1OP

~F = ~I + ~J

P1/2

S1/2σ±

1−1



– 30

E-field

MC

PK

+

Helmholtz

D1OP

photoionization

20mF −2=

~F = ~I + ~J

P1/2

S1/2σ±

355 nm

1−1

Atomic measurement of P


– 31

Deduce P based on a model of the excited state populations

P1/2

mF

S1/2

0 2

σ±

−2= −1 1

Polarization error budget


– 32

∆P [×10−4] ∆T [×10−4]Source

σ− σ+ σ− σ+

Systematics

Initial alignment 3 3 10 8Global fit vs. average 2 2 7 6Uncertainty on sout3 1 2 11 5Cloud temperature 2 0.5 3 2Binning 1 1 4 3Uncertainty in Bz 0.5 3 2 7Initial polarization 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4Require I+ = I− 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

Total systematic 5 5 17 14

Statistics 7 6 21 17

Total uncertainty 9 8 27 22

Polarization error budget


– 32

∆P [×10−4] ∆T [×10−4]Source

σ− σ+ σ− σ+

Systematics

Initial alignment 3 3 10 8Global fit vs. average 2 2 7 6Uncertainty on sout3 1 2 11 5Cloud temperature 2 0.5 3 2Binning 1 1 4 3Uncertainty in Bz 0.5 3 2 7Initial polarization 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4Require I+ = I− 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

Total systematic 5 5 17 14

Statistics 7 6 21 17

Total uncertainty 9 8 27 22

⇒ 〈Pnucl〉 = 99.13(8)%

(c.f. neutrons: 99.7(1)% [PERKEOII], 99.3(3)% [UCNA])

and

〈Talign〉 = −0.9767(25)

Scintillator spectra — June 2014


– 33

Just the raw data; a slight lower-energy cut to get rid of 511s



– 33

Requiring a shake-off e− ⇒ decay occured from trap!



– 33

Requiring a ∆E coincidence ⇒ remove γs



– 33

Put in all the basic analysis cuts ⇒ clean spectrum!!

Energy Spectrum Compared to GEANT4


– 34

Asymmetry Measurement (briefly)


– 35

Asymmetry Measurement (briefly)


– 35

Aobs(Ee) =1− S(Ee)

1 + S(Ee), where S(Ee) ≡

√

r−1 (Ee)r+2 (Ee)

r+1 (Ee)r−2 (Ee)

Aβ Error Budget


– 36

Source Corr Uncert [×10−4]

Backgrounds 1.0013 7

Trap parameters position 4

velocity 5

temp, width 1

Thresholds/cuts ∆E pos 5

∆E energy agreement 2

∆E threshold 1

E threshold 0.3

G4 phys list 4

Shake-off e− TOF 3

E +∆E 1

E calibration 0.1

Total systematics 12

Statistical 13

Polarization 5

Total uncertainty 18

Impact of Aβ Measurement


– 37

In terms of CKM unitarity, our Aβ result improved Vud by nearly a

factor of five: |Vud| = 0.981+12−10 → 0.9745(25).



– 37



In terms of right-handed currents, our result is the best nuclear limit:

MWR> 351 GeV (in minimal left-right symmetric models)



– 37



In terms of right-handed currents, our result is the best nuclear limit:

MWR> 351 GeV (in minimal left-right symmetric models)

Analysis of Fierz and second-class currents (E-dependent

observables) to be finished soon

Summary


– 38

The SM is fantastic, but not our “ultimate” theory

There are many exciting avenues to find more a complete model

Nuclear approach: precision measurement of correlation

parameters

Penning trap + RIB CI = cool physics

largest open-area Penning trap especially suited for β-delayed

proton decays

will search for scalar currents via aβν and bFierz

(AC-)MOT + opt. pumping = cool physics

extremely precise, high nuclear polarization: 〈P 〉 = 99.13(8)%best nuclear limit on MWR

> 351 GeV (at ζ = 0).

on the way to a 0.1% measurement of Aβ and other

(un)polarized correlations

The Mad Trappers/Thanks


– 39

TAMU: S. Behling, E. Bennett,

Y. Boran, B. Fenker, M.

Mehlman, J. Patti, P. Shidling

+ TAMU/REU undergrads

+ ENSICAEN interns

TRINAT: J.A. Behr, A. Gorelov, L. Kurchananov,

K. Olchanski, K.P. Jackson, . . .

D. Ashery, I. Cohen M. Anholm, G. Gwinner

Funding/Support: DE-FG02-93ER40773, ECA ER41747

TAMU/Cyclotron Institute

The Mad Trappers/Thanks


– 39

TAMU: S. Behling, E. Bennett,

Y. Boran, B. Fenker, M.

Mehlman, J. Patti, P. Shidling

+ TAMU/REU undergrads

+ ENSICAEN interns

TRINAT: J.A. Behr, A. Gorelov, L. Kurchananov,

K. Olchanski, K.P. Jackson, . . .

D. Ashery, I. Cohen M. Anholm, G. Gwinner

Funding/Support: DE-FG02-93ER40773, ECA ER41747

TAMU/Cyclotron Institute

And thank you for your

attention!

Fundamentally Cool Physics with Trapped Atoms and Ions · 2019-07-18 · Fundamentally Cool Physics...

Documents

Transcript of Fundamentally Cool Physics with Trapped Atoms and Ions · 2019-07-18 · Fundamentally Cool Physics...