1. Status of Electric Dipole Moment (EDM) Searches Role of EDM in CP Violation Particle EDM Zoo Future reach of EDM searches B. Filippone FCCP2016 From NSAC 2012 Implementation Report

2. How big are EDMs? e.g. neutron: +2/3e -2(1/3e) if l ~ 0.1 r n d n ~ 5x10 -14 e-cm u-quark d-quarks But Experiment says d n < 3x10 -26 e-cm !! 2

3. T/CP Violation 3 P-even T-even P-odd T-odd  Non-zero d violates T and CP (via CPT) -+ B -+ J +- E -+ d -+  TP

4. But NH 3 EDM is not T-odd But some molecules have HUGE EDMs! H 2 0: d = 0.4 x 10 -8 e-cm NaCl: d= 1.8 x 10 -8 e-cm NH 3 : d = 0.3 x 10 -8 e-cm If neutron/electron had a degenerate state, then their EDM would not violate T or CP. But they don’t! Ground state is actually a superposition 4

5. EDM in Standard Model Standard Model EDMs are due to CP violation in CKM Matrix but… –Need at least three loops to get EDM’s (electron actually requires 4 loops) –Thus EDM’s are VERY small in standard model –Thus “theory error” is negligible g d,s,b W 5

6. But Theory Remains Essential Extraction of fermionic EDM from p, n, atom Calculation of enhancement factors for certain species Model constraints based on EDM limits/observations 6

7. EDM from New Physics New physics (e.g. SUSY/other) often has new CP violating phases in added couplings (why not?) –New phases: (  CP ) could be ~ 1 (why not?) Contribution to EDMs depends on masses of new particles Observation of EDM in next 10 yrs must be new physics (since SM background ~ 0) with mass reach > 10 - 1000 TeV d n exp < 0.03 x 10 -24 e-cm e.g. d n ~ 10 -24 e-cm x sin  CP (1 TeV/M SUSY ) 2 7

8. EDMs are from –  QCD – Fermionic EDMs – Gluonic interactions Origin of EDMs CP  QCD Weinberg 3-gluon term quark color EDM (chromo-EDM) e -,quark EDM

9. Particle EDM Zoo (where to look?) Paramagnetic (unpaired electrons) atoms and polar molecules are very sensitive to Diamagnetic (paired electrons) atoms are sensitive to quark chromo- EDM Charged particle traps ( , p, molecular ion) sensitive to Trapped ultracold neutrons sensitive to Observation or lack thereof in one system does not necessarily predict results for other systems 9

10. SystemDependencePresent Limit (e-cm) Future (e-cm) n d n ~ (3x10 -16 )  QCD + <3x10 -26 ~10 -28 199 Hg d Hg ~ (0.001x10 -16 )  QCD - <7x10 -30 ~10 -30 Example of Relative EDM Sensitivities 10

11. What is the precision for an EDM measurement? Sensitivity: E – Electric Field T m – Time for single measurement m – total # of measurements N – Total # of counts/meas. Precise energy measurement requires long coherence/ measurement time, giving Plus shot noise = counting statistics Uncertainty in d: 11 Coherence time

12. Simplified Measurement of EDM B-field E-field Must know B very well 12 “Always measure a frequency”

13. Best Present Sensitivities (90% CL) Trapped Neutrons: –d n < 3 x 10 -26 e-cm – Institut Laue-Langevin: PRD 92, 092003 (2015). Diamagnetic Atom: 199 Hg –d Hg < 7 x 10 -30 e-cm –U. Washington: Graner, et al PRL 116, 161601 (2016) Paramagnetic Polar Molecule:ThO –d e < 1 x 10 -28 e-cm –Harvard/Yale (ACME Collaboration): Baron et al.,Science 343, 269 (2014) 13

14. ACME Experiment: ThO Metastable paramagnetic state (Lasers) Effective E-field = 78 GV/cm (with 10 V/cm applied field Coherence time ~ 2 ms Can flip effective E-field (Lasers) but not applied E-field (excellent control of systematic effects) Sensitivity improved by > 10 14

15. Future Proposed Sensitivities Paramagnetic Molecules ( ) –YbF-Imperial (x100) –ThO-Harvard/Yale (x10-100) –Cs-PennState (x40) Diamagnetic Atoms ( ) – 199 Hg-Washington (x10) –radioactive/deformed 225 Ra-ANL (x10) Charged Particle Traps ( ) – Proton-Fermilab/CERN (x10 4 ) –  -Fermilab (x100  – HfF + -JILA (x10) Trapped Ultracold Neutrons ( ) –ILL, TRIUMF, J-PARC, SNS, LANL, PSI, FRMII, PNPI, RCNP –(x10-100) 15

16. pEDM (from T. Bowcock). A Storage Ring Experiment to Detect a Proton Electric Dipole Moment V. Anastassopoulos (Patras U.) et al.. Feb 15, 2015. e-Print: arXiv:1502.04317 [physics.acc-ph]

17. 17 Worldwide neutron EDM Searches SNS J-PARC ILL PSI FRMII TRIUMF RCNP PNPI LANL

18. History of nEDM Sensitivity 20002010 1950 18

19. ExperimentUCN sourcecellMeasurement techniques  d Goal (10 -28 e-cm) ILL - CryoEDMSuperfluid 4 He 4 He Cryo HV, SuperCond., Ramsey technique, external SQUID mag. < 5 ILL-PNPI ILL turbine PNPI/Solid D 2 Vac. Ramsey technique for  E=0 cell for magnetometer Phase1<100 < 10 ILL CrystalCold n Beam solid Crystal Diffraction Non-Centrosymmetric crystal < 100 PSI EDMSolid D 2 Vac. Ramsey for  external Cs & 3 He, Hg co- magnetom. Xe or Hg comagnetometer Phase1 ~ 50 Phase 2 < 5 Munich FRMIISolid D 2 Vac. Room Temp., Hg Co-mag., also external Cs mag. < 5 RCNP/TRIUMFSuperfluid 4 He Vac. Small vol., Xe co-mag. @ RCNP Then move to TRIUMF < 50 < 5 SNS nEDMSuperfluid 4 He 4 He Cryo-HV, 3 He capture for  3 He co-mag. with SQUIDS & dressed spins, supercond. < 5 JPARCSolid D 2 Vac. Under Development < 5 JPARCSolid D 2 Solid Crystal Diffraction Non-Centrosymmetric crystal < 10? LANLSolid D 2 Vac. R & D ~ 30 Worldwide neutron EDM Searches 19 = sensitivity < 5 x 10 -28 e-cm Present neutron EDM limit < 300

20. nEDM Experiment at Oak Ridge Lab-SNS Higher trapped neutron densities – high Ultracold neutrons from phonons in LHe LHe as a high voltage insulator – high electric fields Use of a 3 He co-magnetometer and superconducting shield – Control and measure magnetic field systematics Precession frequency measurement via two techniques: free precession dressed spin techniques Sensitivity reach: d n ~ 2 x 10 –28 e cm (in calendar 3 yrs) Concept: R. Golub & S. K. Lamoreaux, Phys. Rep. 237, 1 (1994) “Most ambitious nEDM experiment that is underway”

21. SNS-nEDM COLLABORATION R. Alarcon, R. Dipert Arizona State University G. Seidel Brown University D. Budker UC Berkeley M. Blatnik, R. Carr, B. Filippone, C. Osthelder, S. Slutsky, X. Sun, C. Swank California Institute of Technology M. Ahmed, M. Busch, P. –H. Chu, H. Gao Duke University I. Silvera Harvard University M. Karcz, C.-Y. Liu, J. Long, H.O. Meyer, M. Snow Indiana University L. Bartoszek, D. Beck, C. Daurer, J.-C. Peng, T. Rao, S. Williamson, L. Yang University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign C. Crawford, T. Gorringe, W. Korsch, E. Martin, N. Nouri, B. Plaster University of Kentucky S. Clayton, S. Currie, T. Ito, Y, Kim, M. Makela, J. Ramsey, W.Sondheim Los Alamos National Lab K. Dow, D. Hasell, E. Ihloff, J. Kelsey, J. Maxwell, R. Milner, R. Redwine, E. Tsentalovich, C. Vidal Massachusetts Institute of Technology D. Dutta, E. Leggett Mississippi State University R. Golub, C. Gould, D. Haase, A. Hawari, P. Huffman, E. Korobkina, K. Leung, A. Reid, A. Young North Carolina State University R. Allen, V. Cianciolo, Y. Efremenko, P. Mueller, S. Penttila, W. Yao Oak Ridge National Lab M. Hayden Simon Fraser University G. Greene, N. Fomin University of Tennessee S. Stanislaus Valparaiso University S. Baeβler University of Virginia S. Lamoreaux Yale University 21 Project Manager: V. Cianciolo Spokesperson: B. Filippone

22. 3He ATOMIC BEAM SOURCE 3He DILUTION REFRIGERATOR CENTRAL DETECTOR SYSTEM MAGNETIC SHIELD HOUSE Neutron beam is into page SNS-nEDM Experiment 22

23. Status of the Experiment Demonstration of Critical Components is Underway (2014-2017) –Construction of most technically challenging pieces: Magnet system @ Caltech Polarized 3 He system @ Illinois HV and light detection system @ Los Alamos National Lab Large Scale Integration (2018-2020) –Begin commissioning components at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 2019

24. Future nEDM Sensitivity 20002010 Future neutron EDM 1950 24 2020

25. Summary Greatly improved EDM sensitivity can probe BSM physics at very high mass scales A number of exciting technologies are being developed to extend EDM sensitivities (p, n, , atoms, polar molecules) by more than two orders-of- magnitude 25