Oct. 18 2017

Attendees: Shaul, Jim, Gianfranco, Jean-Baptiste, Mathieu, Alex, Colin, Nick

Agenda:

CMB Probe simulations (Mathieu & Jacques)

Located here

README FILE

Extragalactic Point source and CIB update (Gianfranco)

Cluster lensing update (Jean-Baptiste & Jim)

CMB Halo lensing update

Component separation (Colin, Max, & Nick)

CMB Lensing (Alex)

CMB Lensing S/N update

Cluster update (Nick)

Imager 27200 of clusters and Imager+Spectrometer 19800 of clusters

Cluster Cosmology + optical WL mass calibration

Imager: sigma Mnu 23.2 meV, w error 5.09 %, sigma wa 0.27

Imager + Spectrometer: sigma Mnu 29.9 meV, w error 6.05 %, sigma wa 0.32

Imager discussion

Summary table of scinece trade-offs

Spectrometer Science Slides (Colin H.)

Spectrometer wiki page

Minutes

Simulations are available now.

Planck Sky model, following the core cluster paper, 21 frequency bands following the CMB Probe spec (indicated in the Readme). Sky maps Nside=4096 goes to ell of 6000, unit muK (RJ). Components include CMB, Lensing, thermal SZ, kinetic SZ, relativist SZ, CIB, galactic dust, galactic sync, galactic free, AME, points sources for CIB and radio.

Each sub directory contains a map at a give frequency.

Correlations between extragalactic sources?

Differences between PSM and PySM? PySM doesn’t have extra galactic sources.

Action item: Jean-Baptiste cluster extractions and check on the 2 highest frequencies

CMB Halo lensing

Degradation of a factor 2-3 in mass error when we add a spectrometer.

11’ arcmin beam you pick up the cluster and 2-halo term (neighbors in the cosmic web). Could fit for this term, but it adds more modeling uncertainty.

Action item: Nick will run cosmological parameters with CMB halo lensing mass calibrations

Extragalactic point sources

50 cm does not add anything new to Planck results beyond the have high frequencies (> 350 GHz) in polarizations. Gianfranco and Mattia will be running new calculations to have quantitative comparisons.

CMB Lensing

50% reduction in the S/N going to 50 cm imager, the loss isn’t as bad because the EB polarization estimator doesn’t need quite as higher resolution.

Brief description of the cluster results and summary table of trade offs

Please add or add to any science cases on the table.