Attendance: Al K., Shaul H., Bill Jones, Jacques D.,Colin H.
Notes by: Karl
APC Instructions + Allocations
Current Cover Page
Is 2 pages, should be fine.
Currently includes authors + endorsers from PICO. SH: we will write to all authors that they are by default on this white paper.
SH: don't have a full list of emails for endorsers (didn't track during PICO). Will send a note to our mailing lists that they are being included.
Bill: Opt out sounds fine. They already opted in once.
Executive Summary:
1 page. Concentrate on SOs + why PICO, why now
SH: was 2.5 pages + Science matrix (4.5 pages total).
SH: will cut matrix. and reduce 2.5 to 1 by cutting much of the extra broad science. Only keep 7 key science objectives. Will also discuss LCDM constraints.
SH: keep broad message of 'why PICO, why now'. Focus on this as the key.
Bill: sounds correct. Key for APC is snippets the committee can grab and quote. Details can be found in the report.
SH: A/I will have more concrete text by next week
New / Modify Figures?
-
SH: modification to the r, ns parameter space figure. Contrasts Planck, S4, LiteBIRD, PICO. Shows PICO is only model that can reach sub-planck mass scales.
AK: one improvement. 2 color shades show 1, 2 sigma contours. Doesn't show a striking S4 to PICO difference. 2 sigma only would look more compelling. Or maybe 3 sigma contours make more sense.
JD: since r is log scale, the 3x distance from PICO to 1 planck mass is not obvious. AK: agree.
SH: suggestion– change all contours to 3 sigma. shrink r scale slightly. r=10^-1 to almost 10^-5. Will discuss with Raphael and make some new versions
SH: agree that this figure makes sense instead of figure from 2.2?
JD: one nice piece of fig 2.2 is the contour for PICO. Can we pick a reasonable r to give pico upper limits and everyone else upper limits?
SH: visually would be good, but doesn't support the planck mass statement as well.
Bill: think if there is a finite r value case. also need upper limits. Could do upper limits for all and an additional r = 'some value' contour for PICO.
JD: even better would be ~2 models that PICO can distinguish but others can't.
SH: theorists are likely reluctant to pick single models, but will talk with Raphael.
Give reference to Report + white papers (instructions encourage this)
Science goals:
4 pages Concentrate on SOs + uniqueness of space + uniqueness of PICO
Eliminate details of systematics + foregrounds; leave foreground argument. Eliminate complementarity.
Bill: import to acknowledge ground by saying that space systematics are orthogonal to ground systematics. SH: will include this
SH: foregrounds in report currently is ~3.5 pages. This is important and will keep more text than we do for systematics. But still cut most of it. Also space is strong in foregrounds measurement.
CH: LiteBIRD has been selected. Any plans to discuss? Allude to this?.
SH: several people said strongly that the white paper must highlight distinction between PICO, LiteBIRD. and between PICO and S4. People were concerned about this last week.
AK: Useful to speak to NASA saying why we shouldn't just wait for LiteBIRD.
Bill: Also be careful not to write in such a way that implies LiteBIRD is a done deal. LiteBIRD still may not happen, it still relies on uncertain US and European contributions.
JD: There is an ESA call for science cases for 2035-2050 plan. We plan to outline options for CMB polarization and similar science. Will mention PICO, possibility of spectrometer. Could impact eventual ESA participation in future NASA CMB mission. We will want further discussion to coordinate this. 20 page white paper. Deadline is August 5th. Help is welcome.
Telecon next week. Need to submit APC in 3 weeks.