sign in sign up
<<
Home , Antimatter, Atomic physics, Physics

Antimatter: from atomic to

Michael Doser CERN 1905 1925

1927 1932 Dirac

every has an

the properties of the antiparticle are identical to those of the particle (except that its charges have the opposite sign)

of and However, the is unexpectedly not symmetric

Matter

Why is the Universe lopsided? How can the absence of antimatter be explained?

Baryon

Search for antimatter Study antimatter , in cosmic rays; Investigate and Positron- in try to find an asymmetry 1905 1925 at Special Relativity CERN

1927 1932 Positron

1955 1948 1956 accelerator developments

1965 1956-1990’s 1970’s: Antideuteron Scattering, annihilation, accumulation, cooling meson 1970 1980’s: 3 _ Anti- He (SppS, LEP, Tevatron) 1980’s - now 1978 W, Z, b, t physics Anti-tritium 1983 - 1996: 1996: hot (v~c) trapping LEAR Primordial antimatter, 2000 - now Anti- cold antihydrogen AD

trapped cold antihydrogen use these to:

produce and trap stable (anti)particles, combine them to form (anti) carry out precision measurements of their properties

Search for some form of asymmetry between and antimatter : CP and CPT

do particles (atoms) have the same properties as antiparticles (antiatoms) ? Motivation Precision measurements with Antimatter:

1) Precise comparison between matter and antimatter

of fundamental (CPT - , Parity, ) comparing antiprotons with , with positrons, and with antihydrogen

2) Measurement of the gravitational behavior of antimatter

test of the Weak Equivalence Principle impossible to with charged (anti) particles; only neutral (atoms) are sensitive enough Motivation: CPT Goal of comparative spectroscopy: test CPT symmetry Hydrogen and Antihydrogen

):%30(&/ %30(&/ : )

 

   1  1  4 4  1s-2s  

2 1 1  !=243 nm   T. Hänsch et al., -14 Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5496–5499 (2000) "f/f=10    ' '  4  4 Stefan Meyer Institute ' '

#PIS %JSBD -BNC )'4 )'4 -BNC BD %JS PIS # hyperfine splitting f = 1.4 GHz N. F. Ramsey, -12 Physica Scripta T59, 323 (1995) "f/f=10 E. Widmann 64 with anti-atoms Motivation: CPT Verifications of CPT symmetry Tests of particle/antiparticle symmetry (PDG) absolutabsolutee accur accuracyace (G eV[GeV]) 10−27 10−24 10−21 10−18 10−15 10−12 10−9 10−6 10−3 100

H-H GS-HFS planned H-H 1S-2S

K0-K0

p-p mass, chargecharge p-p charge/massratio

e± mass

Stefan Meyer Institute µ± g-factor

e± g-factor

10−27 10−24 10−21 10−18 10−15 10−12 10−9 10−6 10−3 100 relative accuracy Inconsistent definition of figure of merit: comparison difficult AbsoluteInconsistent definition scale: standard of figure ofmodel merit: extension comparison (Kostelecky) difficult PatternPattern of of CPT CPT violation violation unknown unknown (P: (P: weak weak , interaction; CP: CP: mesons) mesons) Absolute E.energy Widmann scale: extension (Kostelecky PRL 82, 225446 (1999)) Motivation: WEP

General relativity is a classical (non quantum) Some allow WEP violations New quantum fields (, vector) are allowed in some models (Kaluza Klein, ... ), resulting in new that may violate the equivalence principle

Matter-matter interactions have been probed extensively Matter-antimatter interactions have never been probed

Gravitational physics with anti-atoms CERN Accelerator Complex

( 1013 p @ 26 GeV/c2) _ AEgIS

ATRAP

ASACUSA The challenge:

Making Antihydrogen

Route A: Route B:

Trapping Antihydrogen Forming a beam of Antihydrogen Cooling Antihydrogen Studying Antihydrogen Studying Antihydrogen 1000K

1K ASACUSA ALPHA _ ATRAP 1μV 1mK AEgIS Stefan Meyer Institute T • • • Merge andr Ca Ca to form antihydrogen atoms antihydrogen form to ypical E.

Widmann ptur ptur e e , , antihydrogen atoms antihydrogen tra tra Antih p p ecombine , , coolpositr coolantipr ydr positrons antiprotons ogen otons ons 1.5GBq 1-10 10 7 (AD) 3 Hz 22 ➟ Na 10 ➟ 5 (trapped) 10 8 (trapped) 68 Trapping of charged particles

Penning trap

2 cm

All antihydrogen use this technique _ p e+ _ p e+ _ p e+ _ 2002: first production of H

_ p e+ _ Trapping of H? _ Trapping of H?

_ H: Confine both charged plasmas and neutral atoms without heating them -Preserve cylindrical symmetry ( confinement) -Magnetic field minimal in center ( confinement = magnetic bottle) -Antihydrogen must be formed inside its trap -Antihydrogen trapped only if its < 0.5K Reaching the few K regime

essential to avoid reheating: week ending PRL 105, 013003 (2010) P H Y S I C A L R E V I E W L E T T E R S 2 JULY 2010 - great care needed on noise reduction; particle cloud is in thermal equilibrium, the particles that a) 3 _ are- notinitially easyreleased tooriginate use fromelectronthe exponential cooling_ tail of a to pre-cool10 p Boltzmann- how distributo bringtion [13 e],+so andthat acoldfit can pbe inused contactto without heating either? determine the temperature of the particles. Figure 2 shows

six examples of measured antiproton energy distributions. 2 The raw temperature fits in Fig. 2 are corrected by a 10 factor determinedALPHAby particle-in-cell and ATRAP(PIC) haveof solved this plasma

thephysicsantiprotons being problemreleased from the afterconfining manypotential. yearsTemperature [K] of work in 2010 The simulations include the effect of the time dependent 1 10 Data potentials and plasma self-fields, the possibility of Model , and energy exchange between the different 1 2 3 week ending translational degrees of freedom. The simulations suggest 10 PRL 105, 01300310(2010) 10P H Y S I C A L R E V I E W L E T T E R S 2 JULY 2010 evaporative cooling of antiprotonsweek ending (ALPHA) PRL 105, 013003 (2010) P H Y S I C A L R E V I E W thatL EtheT TtemperatureE R S determined from the2 JULfitY is2010 16% On−axis well depth [mV] higher than the true temperature. Note that the PIC-based Evaporative Cooling of Antiprotons_ to Cryogenic particle cloud is in thermal equilibrium, the particles that a) correction3 has been applied to all temperatures reported in b) this10 Letter. The distribution labeled A in Fig. 2 yields a 100 %1 45‘000 p are initially released originate from the exponential tail of a 1000 K G. B. Andresen,1 M. D. Ashkezari,2 M. Baquero-Ruiz,3 W. Bertsche,4 P. D. Bowe,1 E. Butler,4 C. L. Cesar,5 S. Chapman,3 Boltzmann distribution [13], so that a fit can be used to corrected temperature of 1040 45 K before evapora- 4 3 6 7 7 1 8 9 ð Æ Þ 1.5 V 0.8 M. Charlton, J. Fajans, T. Friesen, M. C. Fujiwara, D. R. Gill, J. S. Hangst, W. N. Hardy, R. S. Hayano, determine the temperature of the particles. Figure 2 shows tive cooling; the others are examples of evaporatively M. E. Hayden,2 A. Humphries,4 R. Hydomako,6 S. Jonsell,4,10 L. Kurchaninov,7 R. Lambo,5 N. Madsen,4 S. Menary,11 cooled antiprotons achieved as described below. 12 7 7 3 12 13 14 15,16 3 six examples of measured antiproton energy distributions. 2 P. Nolan, K. Olchanski, A. Olin, A. Povilus, P. Pusa, F. Robicheaux, E. Sarid, D. M. Silveira, C. So, 10 0.6 The raw temperature fits in Fig. 2 are corrected by a 100 KTo perform evaporative cooling, the depth of the initially J. W. Storey,7 R. I. Thompson,6 D. P. van der Werf,4 D. Wilding,4 J. S. Wurtele,3 and Y. Yamazaki15,16 factor determined by particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations of 1500 mV deep confining well was reduced by linearly 50 % 0.4 ramping the voltage applied to one of the electrodes to the antiprotons being released from the confining potential. Temperature [K] 10 mV (ALPHA Collaboration) The simulations include the effect of the time dependent one of six different predetermined values [see examples on Fraction remaining 1 Data 0.2 Data _ vacuum potentials and plasma self-fields, the possibility of Fig.10 1(b)]. Then the antiprotons were allowed to reequili- 1Department of Physics and , , DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark Temperature 10 K Model 2 Model 2’500 p brate for 10 s before being ejected to measure their tem- Department of Physics, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby BC, V5A 1S6, Canada evaporation, and energy exchange between the different 3

fraction remaining 0 perature and1 remaining number2 . The shallo3 west well 0 % 1 Department2 of Physics, University3 of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720-7300, USA translational degrees of freedom. The simulations suggest 10 10 10 10 10 4Department 10of Physics, Swansea University, Swansea SA2 8PP, United Kingdom that the temperature determined from the fit is 16% investigated10 had a depth 100of 10 4 mV1000. Since only one 10 1005 1000 On−axis well ðdepthÆ [mV]Þ On−axis wellInstituto depth [mV]de Fı´sica, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 21941-972, Brazil higher than the true temperature. Note that the PIC-based side of the confining potential is lowered, the evaporating 6Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Calgary, Calgary AB, T2N 1N4, Canada antiprotons are guided by the magnetic field onto the 7TRIUMF, 4004 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver BC, V6T 2A3, Canada correction has been applied to all temperatures reported in b) FIG. 3. (a) Temperature vs the8 on-axis well depth. The error is this Letter. The distribution labeled A in Fig. 2 yields a aluminum1 foil, where they annihilate. Monitoring the an- Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC, V6T 1Z1, Canada on-axis well depth [mV] the combinedon-axisstatistical well fromdepththe temperature 9[mV]Departmentfit ofandPhysics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan corrected temperature of 1040 45 K before evapora- nihilation signal allows us to calculate the number of an uncertainty associated with the applied potentials10 (one ). ð Æ Þ 0.8 Fysikum, Stockholm University, SE-10609, Stockholm, Sweden tive cooling; the others are examples of evaporatively antiprotons remaining at any time by summing all antipro- The model calculation described in the11Departmenttext is shownof Physicsas a line.and Astronomy, York University, Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada cooled antiprotons achieved as described below. ton losses and subtracting the measured cosmic (b) The fraction of antiprotons remaining12Departmentafter eofvaporatiPhysics,veUniversity of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZE, United Kingdom 13 To perform evaporative cooling, the depth of the initially background.0.6 cooling vs on-axis well depth. The uncertaintyDepartmenton eachof Physics,point Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849-5311, USA is propagated from the counting 14errorDepartment(one of).Physics,The initialNRCN-Nuclear Research Center Negev, Beer Sheva, IL-84190, Israel 1500 mV deep confining well was reduced by linearly Figure 3(a) shows the temperature obtained during 15 0.4 number of antiprotons was approximatelyAtomic Physics45 000Laboratorfor an yon-, Advanced Institute, Wako, Saitama 351-0198, Japan ramping the voltage applied to one of the electrodes to evaporative cooling as a function of the well depth. We 16 axis well depth of 1484 14 mV. Graduate School of Arts and , University of Tokyo, Tokyo 153-8902, Japan one of six different predetermined values [see examples on Fraction remaining observe an almost linear relationship, and in the case of the ð Æ Þ (Received 9 April 2010; published 2 July 2010) 0.2 Fig. 1(b)]. Then the antiprotons were allowed to reequili- most shallow well, we estimate the temperatureData to be 9 Model ð Æ We report the application of evaporative cooling to clouds of trapped antiprotons, resulting in plasmas brate for 10 s before being ejected to measure their tem- 4 K. The fraction of antiprotons remaining at the various A striking feature of the antiprotonwith measuredimagestemperaturewas theasradiallow as 9 K. We have modeled the evaporation process for charged particles Þ 0 well depths1 is shown on Fig.2 3(b), where it is3 found that expansion of the cloud with decreasingusing appropriatewell depth,rate .from anGood agreement between experiment and theory is observed, permitting perature and remaining number. The shallowest well 10 10 10 investigated had a depth of 10 4 mV. Since only one 6 1 % of the initial 45 000 antiprotons remain in the initial radius r0 of 0.6 mm topredictionapproximatelyof cooling3 mefficiencym for thein future experiments. The technique opens up new possibilities for ð Æ Þ On−axis well depth [mV] side of the confining potentialð isÆlowered,Þ the evaporating shallowest well. shallowest well. If one assumescoolingthatof alltrappedevaporatingions and isanti-of particular interest in antiproton physics, where a precise CPT test on We investigated various (300, 100, 30, 10, and 1 s) protons are lost from the radialtrappedcenterantihydrogenof the cloud,is a long-standingwhere goal. antiprotons are guided by the magnetic field onto the FIG. 3. (a) Temperature vs the on-axis well depth. The error is aluminum foil, where they annihilate. Monitoring the an- the combinedfor rampingstatisticaldownuncertaintythe confiningfrom thepotentialtemperaturefromfit and1500 to the confining electric field isDOI:weakest,10.1103/PhysReno angularvLett.105momen-.013003 PACS numbers: 37.10.Mn, 52.25.Dg, 52.27.Jt, 64.70.fm nihilation signal allows us to calculate the number of an uncertainty10 mV. Theassociatedfinal temperaturewith the appliedand fractionpotentialsremaining(one ). were tum is carried away in the loss process. Conservation of antiprotons remaining at any time by summing all antipro- The modelessentiallycalculationindependentdescribedofinthisthetimetext isexceshoptwnforasthea line.1 s case, total canonical [7] would then predict Historically, forced evaporative cooling has been suc- addition, intraspecies loss channels from inelastic colli- (b) Thefor fractionwhich onlyof antiprotons0.1% of theremainingparticles aftersurvivedevaporati. ve that the radial expansion of the density profile follow ton losses and subtracting the measured cosmic cessfully applied to trapped samples of neutral particles sions are nonexistent. Strong to the trapping fields cooling vsA secondon-axis setwellofdepth.measurementsThe uncertaintywas carriedon eachoutpointto deter- the expression N =N r2 = r2 when angular momen- background. [01], and remains0 the only route to achieve Bose-Einstein makes precise control of the confining potential more is propagated from the counting error (one ). The initial ¼ h i h i Figure 3(a) shows the temperature obtained during mine the transverse antiproton density profile as a function tum is redistributedcondensationamong fewerin suchparticles.systemsHere[2]. HoN0weisvtheer, the technique critical for charged particles. Also, for plasmas, the self- number of antiprotons was approximately 45 000 for an on- evaporative cooling as a function of the well depth. We of well depth. For these studies the antiprotons were re- initial number ofhasantiprotonsonly foundandlimitedN and rapplicationsare, respectiforvelytrapped, (at fields can both reduce the rate through screening axis well depth of 1484 14 mV. observe an almost linear relationship, and in the case of the leased onto theð combinedÆ Þ microchannel plate and phosphor the number and radiustemperaturesafter evaporati100 eVv[e3])cooling.and has Wneevefindr been realized in and change the effective depth of the confining potential.  most shallow well, we estimate the temperature to be 9 screen assembly [see Fig. 1(a)], and the measured line- that this simple modelcold plasmas.describesHerethe wedatareportreasonablythe applicationwell. of forced The ALPHA apparatus, which is designed with the ð Æ evaporative cooling to a dense ( 106 cm 3) cloud of intention of creating and trapping antihydrogen [5], is 4 K. The fraction of antiprotons remaining at the various A strikingintegratedfeaturedensityof theprofileantiprotonwas usedimagesto wassolvethetheradialPoisson- To predict the effect of evaporative cooling inour trapÀ wellÞ depths is shown on Fig. 3(b), where it is found that expansionBoltzmannof the cloudequationswith todecreasingobtain thewellfulldepth,three-dimensionalfrom an we modeled thetrappedprocessantiprotons,by solvingresultingthe ratein equationstemperatures as low as located at the Antiproton Decelerator (AD) at CERN [6]. 9 K, 2 orders of magnitude lower than any previously It consists of a Penning-Malmberg trap for charged parti- 6 1 % of the initial 45 000 antiprotons remain in the initialdensityradius rdistribof 0ution.6 mmandto approximatelyelectric potential3 m[14m].for the describing the time evolution of the temperature T, and ð Æ Þ 0 reported [4]. cles with an octupole-based magnetostatic trap for neutral shallowest well. shallowest well. If one assumes that all evaporating anti- The process of evaporation is driven by elastic atoms superimposed on the central region. For the work We investigated various times (300, 100, 30, 10, and 1 s) protons are lost from the radial center of the cloud, where 013003-3 that scatter high energy particles out of the confining presented here, the magnetostatic trap was not energized for ramping down the confining potential from 1500 to the confining electric field is weakest, no angular momen- potential, thus decreasing the temperature of the remaining and the evaporative cooling was performed in a homoge- 10 mV. The final temperature and fraction remaining were tum is carried away in the loss process. Conservation of particles. For charged particles the process benefits from neous 1 T solenoidal field. essentially independent of this time except for the 1 s case, total canonical angular momentum [7] would then predict the long range of the Coulomb interaction, and Figure 1(a) shows a schematic diagram of the apparatus, for which only 0.1% of the particles survived. that the radial expansion of the density profile will follow compared to neutrals of similar density and temperature, with only a subset of the 20.05 mm long and 22.275 mm A second of measurements was carried out to deter- the expression N =N r2 = r2 when angular momen- the elastic collision rate is much higher, making cooling of radius, hollow cylindrical electrodes shown. The vacuum 0 ¼ h i h 0i much lower numbers and densities of particles feasible. In wall is cooled using helium, and the measured mine the transverse antiproton density profile as a function tum is redistributed among fewer particles. Here N0 is the of well depth. For these studies the antiprotons were re- initial number of antiprotons and N and r are, respectively, leased onto the combined microchannel plate and phosphor the number and radius after evaporative cooling. We find 0031-9007=10=105(1)=013003(5) 013003-1 Ó 2010 The American Physical Society screen assembly [see Fig. 1(a)], and the measured line- that this simple model describes the data reasonably well. integrated density profile was used to solve the Poisson- To predict the effect of evaporative cooling in our trap Boltzmann equations to obtain the full three-dimensional we modeled the process by solving the rate equations density distribution and [14]. describing the time evolution of the temperature T, and

013003-3 2010: Successful trapping! (of single atoms!)

(ALPHA) antihydrogen or antiprotons?

quick opening of magnetic trap (20 ms) + sensitive detector for antihydrogen

ATRAP has managed to trap several atoms at once Spectroscopy with trapped antihydrogen?

Antihydrogen atom trapping time

(ALPHA) Spectroscopy with trapped antihydrogen?

Spectroscopy: HFS Antihydrogen atom trapping time via microwave (ALPHA) Spectroscopy with trapped antihydrogen!

Spectroscopy: HFS but: B-field varies strongly over trap Antihydrogen atom trapping time via microwave (ALPHA) (ALPHA) 2012 Spectroscopy with trapped antihydrogen!

Spectroscopy: HFS but: B-field varies strongly over trap Antihydrogen atom trapping time via microwave (ALPHA) (ALPHA) 2012

Next steps: better cooling, more atoms, spectroscopy: much tinkering will be needed

attracted be radiofrequency a onto focused be will thus nd a axis extuple s the owards t

will hich w seekers’, ‘low-field and defocused, be will hus t and agnet m extupole s a of

ill w which field nhomogeneous i the in field magnetic higher of egions r towards move

seekers’, ‘high-field ): 2 ig. F (see airs p two into ivided d e b can toms a H ground-state

the of states hyperfine four he t , magnetic heir t f o ign s the on Depending

CERN. at operating already is it nd a apan, J IKEN, R t a developed as w rap t usp c The

Geneva, CERN, t a development Germany. arching, G PQ, M the nd a Switzerland

under urrently c s i rap t aul P The ]. 8 , 7 [ trap cusp superconducting a r o ] 6 [ rap t aul P ing

uperconduct- s wo- t a either in produced be ill w atoms ntihydrogen a The

. 1 ig. F n i hown s s i line

schematic A toms. a ) K 1 ( ultra-cold atomic proposed he t f o iew v <

equire r would trapping while atoms, K) 50–100 ( igh-temperature h relatively with

ork w can it that advantage he t has method This S-HFS. G H he t measure to iments

exper- type) (Stern-Gerlach eam b tomic a lassical c o t imilar s ] 6 [ ethod m a se u o t plans

ccelerator A ntiproton A CERN’s t a collaboration SACUSA A the Thus (AD)

ult. c fi if d very measurements

pectroscopy s igh-precision h ake m would hich w much, oo t levels energy he t broaden

ould w and strong oo t e b would elds fi required he t owever, H gradient. and hift s

magnetic onfining c a by field RF he t n i ept k e b ould c atoms Antihydrogen field

walls. cavity he t ith w colliding when nnihilate a would

they ince s cavity, aser m a in kept be cannot toms a ntimatter a nfortunately, U field.

he t ith w ime t interaction he t o t proportional nversely i s i esolution r experimental the

s a pectroscopy, s precise or f ime t enough long or f eld fi radiofrequency he t n i atoms

Stefan Meyer Institute

interactions between p and nuclei) and p between interactions pHe atom exotic of: studies successful many (inparallel,

• much higher precision on HFS: 10 HFS: on precision higher much • • but: formation of beam is not simple not is beam of formation but: • much tinkering will needed be tinkering much

(T) B

0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00

-2.0

4 H Gr • higher temperature is OKis temperature higher • • • • • • • Experiment with H beam: ground state HFS state ground Experimentwithbeam: H seekers

ultimate pr achie thr lo -flip b atomic beamf atoms • • • •

E. -1.5 high-

,M)=(0,0)

atomic f (F > 100H/sin1Sstate needed better 10–6f No tra • 100 H/s in 1S state needed state in1S H/s 100 • 10 than better •

Widmann w-backgr

3 ough annihilation SPSC-2003-009 E.W ASACUSA -1.0 ASACUSA

vable r

-0.5 ound-state HyperfineStructur

ν “e

. etal.CERN- ,M)=(1,1)

(F _ _ (GHz) pping needed!!

ountain ofH->FLAIR 0.0

va

y micr drawn

lso a are method

porate” proposed

ecision: ound high-efficiencydetectionofantih

0.5 trapping: to Alternative

,M)=(1,0) proposalfor (F esolution

the with

or transitions

1.0 or f

e h T . field magnetic

B 2 1 1 π σ π

2 T

o seekers -6 external the of

_ function

1.5

H wa

! for T<100K for

,M)=(1,-1)

(F ocussing andspinselection low-field a as antihydrogen of states

1 100K

2.0 hyperfine four he t f o v )

_

e e p

2 Fig. i.e. ( + AD

represent the hile w states, eeker s ow-field l n i atoms states eeker s high-field in toms a H lines dashed

H represent ith w drawn trajectories he T cavity. icrowave m the nd a extupole s two lines

-6

1 Fig. he t source, ntihydrogen a the with spectrometer beam atomic roposed p the of view Schematic

B.Juhasz, E. Widmann, Hyperfine Interact (2009)193:305 Hyperfine Interact Widmann, B.Juhasz, E.

307 GS-HFS antihydrogen he t f o measurement ydr Proposed e ogen 76

_ _ AEgIS: a beam of H to test gravity

Tests of gravity require_ very cold trapped H or_ a pulsed cold beam of H

_ AEgIS goal: g measurement with 1% accuracy on antihydrogen

(first direct measurement on antimatter) 3 steps: 1) pulsed antihydrogen formation

→ 3 steps: 1) pulsed antihydrogen formation

→

2) horizontal antihydrogen beam formation (method from physical ) 3 steps: 1) pulsed antihydrogen formation

→

2) horizontal antihydrogen beam formation (method from ) 3) measurement of parabolic trajectory (classical atom “interferometer”)

horizontal trajectories

20 μm

parabolic trajectories _ AEgIS: assembled at the end Zoneof 2012 late 2012 Next 3 years at the AD: much tinkering

Technical developments in the experiments are needed:

• better cooling, more trapped atoms, cooling of trapped atoms • new antihydrogen production methods, beam formation, better cooling

these experiments are continuously works in

Hope for: • laser spectroscopy of antihydrogen in traps and in beam • measurement of gravitational interaction between matter and antimatter

before coming to the time beyond 2016, a small detour through space... Antimatter in space

AMS at CERN

AMS in space AMS: search for antiprotons, antideuterons, anti-C in cosmic rays

AMS: search for positrons PAMELA/Fermi signal confirmed

standard (“boring”) astrophysical sources sufficient to explain a rise? is there a drop at higher energies? could then be a sign of ... stay tuned...... back to : Antiproton and antihydrogen experiments at the AD: Spectroscopy Gravity

ALPHA AEgIS ASACUSA GBAR ATRAP ...

ACE BASE ... Matter-Antimatter ... Antimatter manipulations interactions Symmetries increasing & continuous demand for antiprotons, current methods for trapping them are very inefficient current situation

AEgIS ATRAP I & II ALPHA ASACUSA increasing & continuous demand for antiprotons, current methods for trapping them are very inefficient ELENA to the rescue

AEgIS ATRAP I & II GBAR BASE ALPHA ASACUSA space for future (anti)atomic physics experiments ELENA is a tiny new decelerator that: • dramatically slows down the antiprotons from the AD • increases the trapping efficiency x 100 • allows 4 experiments to run in parallel

start in 2017 Outlook Antimatter research at CERN covers a wide range • atomic physics • search for dark matter • gravity • cosmology • • medical applications • plasma physics

requires modest resources but much patience & time relies on many technologies from many fields of science is very educational and of great interest to the media the beginning