4.4 Article

Positron accumulation in the GBAR experiment

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.nima.2022.167263

关键词

Positron; Accumulator; Antimatter; Antihydrogen; Gravitation

资金

  1. Agence Nationale de la Recherche, France [ANR-14-CE33-0008]
  2. CNES, France [5100017115]
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation, Switzerland [173597]
  4. ETH Zurich, Switzerland [ETH-46 17-1]
  5. Swedish Research Council [VR 2021-04005]
  6. Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea
  7. National Research Foundation of Korea [NRF-2016R1A6 A3A11932936, NRF2021R1A2C3-010989]
  8. CERN
  9. Enhanced Eurotalents Fellowship programme
  10. CUP(IBS) [IBS-R016-Y1]
  11. Laboratoire dExcellence P2IO [ANR-10-LABX-0038, ANR11-IDEX-0003-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The article presents a description of the GBAR positron trapping apparatus, which aims to measure the acceleration of neutral antihydrogen atom in Earth's gravitational field by neutralizing a cooled positive antihydrogen ion. The apparatus requires a large number of positrons and antiprotons to produce one antihydrogen ion, which are trapped and accumulated in stages for further study.
We present a description of the GBAR positron (e+) trapping apparatus, which consists of a three stage Buffer Gas Trap (BGT) followed by a High Field Penning Trap (HFT), and discuss its performance. The overall goal of the GBAR experiment is to measure the acceleration of the neutral antihydrogen (H) atom in the terrestrial gravitational field by neutralising a positive antihydrogen ion (H+), which has been cooled to a low temperature, and observing the subsequent H annihilation following free fall. To produce one H + ion, about 1010 positrons, efficiently converted into positronium (Ps), together with about 107 antiprotons (p), are required. The positrons, produced from an electron linac-based system, are accumulated first in the BGT whereafter they are stacked in the ultra-high vacuum HFT, where we have been able to trap 1.4(2) x 109 positrons in 1100 s.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据