MEMS program for LOUD
K.Stifter, H. Magoon, D. Baxter, others
8/25/2022
Overview
To provide background/context, we start with:
Thinking about LOUD, tests can be split into two categories:
Schematic of MEMS system
Detailed list of requirements can be found here
Eventually, made of a chopping unit and a steering unit
Steering unit is only thing being worked on at FNAL, chopping unit is at SLAC
MEMS mirrors
Cryogenic movement is hard due to:
Our solution: modified MEMS mirrors (right)
Good because:
Steering unit design
Focusing optics
Stationary mirror
To device
From optical fiber
There is no MEMS “readout” - we can only control the voltages we put in, which angles the mirror (and steers the laser)
Steering unit output
Focusing optics
Stationary mirror
To device
From optical fiber
All very passive! We have no feedback on where the laser is without the readout of an attached device
Device attachment
2. Device is mounted
3. Cover is designed
4. Device is secured at MEMS output
Note: Most housings do not need to be redesigned, but a new cover has to be designed for each new housing
Mounting of MEMS system in fridge
MEMS unit screwed to MC plate. Filter installed at output.
MEMS electrical connection at the bottom, SMA connections on device housing. Optical connection on other side.
It has a very large footprint in the fridge.
Recap: Lab A program
Overall: Show that the MEMS mirror and associated setup works - that it functions while cold and operates as expected.
Major goals:
Possible future goals:
Commissioning goals + measurement plans
List of LOUD MEMS commissioning goals
Description | Notes | Prerequisites |
Confirm that laser power does not increase base temperature of fridge | Repeat of Lab A test | Cold MEMS in fridge w/ laser |
Confirm the power dissipated by the MEMS and determine the effect on the base temperature of fridge | Repeat of Lab A test | Cold MEMS in fridge |
Determine if simply biasing or operating the MEMS mirror (but not using the laser) affects the readout of nearby qubits, introduces noise, etc. | Unique to LOUD | Cold MEMS in LOUD, operational qubit in LOUD |
Determine in situ mapping of voltages to a physical XY location | Could also be done in Lab A | Cold MEMS in fridge w/ laser, connected to operational device |
Test position resolution of spot | Might be better done with a CCD? | Cold MEMS in fridge w/ laser, connected to operational device, maybe some updated screen plate |
Determine in situ spot size | Could also be done in Lab A, can maybe be done warm | Cold MEMS in fridge w/ laser, connected to operational device |
Control laser power/timing to produce pulses of varying energies | Could also be done in Lab A, can maybe be done warm | Cold MEMS in fridge w/ laser, connected to operational device |
Determining the laser position in situ: ideally
Scanning area
Qubit chip
Qubits
Laser off chip: no response
Determining the laser position in situ: ideally
Scanning area
Qubit chip
Qubits
Laser on chip but off qubit: some response
Determining the laser position in situ: ideally
Scanning area
Qubit chip
Qubits
Laser on qubit: different response
Determining the laser position in situ: ideally
Scanning area
Qubit chip
Qubits
As we sweep across chip, can track physical XY location on chip by looking at response from qubits, get linear mapping across whole chip
Want to do this in situ, because behavior might change between warm/cold
Determining the position resolution in situ: ideally
Scanning area
Qubit chip
Qubits
We can repeatedly target a qubit (or other small structure) to see if we get a repeatable behavior (and therefore position)
Determining the position resolution in situ: ideally
Scanning area
Qubit chip
Qubits
We can repeatedly target a qubit (or other small structure) to see if we get a repeatable behavior (and therefore position)
Determining the spot size in situ: ideally
Scanning area
Qubit chip
Qubits
This one I am less concerned about, because I don’t see it changing much warm->cold…
But we can target the edge of a structure, and watch response as spot size goes up/down.
Determining the spot size in situ: ideally
Scanning area
Qubit chip
Qubits
This one I am less concerned about, because I don’t see it changing much warm->cold…
But we can target the edge of a structure, and watch response as spot size goes up/down.
Determining the laser position in situ: if needed
What if we don’t see the expected response?
Scanning area
Qubit chip
Qubits
We can design a screen with irregular hole pattern in it, and try to see the response when we target a hole/not a hole
Science goals
Big picture QSC science goals (my understanding)
Ultimately: Want to create a DM detector with lowest threshold possible, a reasonable exposure, and some level of background control/rejection/understanding
(Some) components of this goal:
List of science goals that can be tackled with MEMS
Description | Application to overall goal | Prerequisites |
Do energy depositions from photons impact qubit performance? | Sensing mechanism, detector feasibility | Cold MEMS in fridge w/ laser, connected to operational device |
Do energy depositions in different qubit structures or parts of the substrate impact coherence time differently? | Sensing mechanism, phonon transport, detector performance, calibration | Cold MEMS in fridge w/ laser, connected to operational device, ability to target small substructures |
Do we see differences as we change laser power and photon wavelength? Is a group of photons the same as one photon of the same energy? | Backgrounds | Cold MEMS in fridge w/ laser, connected to operational device, ability to change laser power/wavelength |
What is the smallest amount of energy deposited such that we can measure a signal? | Detector threshold | Cold MEMS in fridge w/ laser, connected to operational device, ability to change laser power/wavelength/pulse length |
Study the effect on all qubits in array - how does the energy spread out? | Phonon transport, backgrounds | Cold MEMS in fridge w/ laser, connected to operational array of devices |
How do different qubit or substrate architectures affect all these things? | Detector design | Cold MEMS in fridge w/ laser, connected to operational device |
Can we match all these results to simulation? | | Functional, flexible simulation framework |
Rough paper planning (based on MEMS results)
A MEMS technology paper? - 2022?
An “energy deposition location” paper - 2023?
A “detector threshold” paper - 2024?
Qubit design papers? - As possible?
Other thoughts/questions
Are those papers too beefy? Should we be thinking about smaller, bite-sized papers?
How do these tie into other QSC publications/plans?
How do we tie these results back into QIS? How are they useful to that community?