Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- private:teleconsnotes20171101 [2017/11/01 14:45] – created hanany
+++ private:teleconsnotes20171101 [2017/11/01 16:11] (current) – kyoung
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== Telecon Notes 20171101 ======
-Attendance:  \\
+Attendance: Raphael, Amy, Shaul, Al, Eric, Brendon, Nick, Charles, Lloyd, Jamie \\
-Notes by:  \\
+Notes by:  Karl \\
 === Agenda ===
   * Brief: authorship policy on papers/abstracts
-  * Update from Fundamental Physics Group (Raphael)
+  * {{:private:lrvshr.pdf|Update from Fundamental Physics Group (Raphael)}}
   * {{:private:spectrometerimagermatrix.pdf|Spectrometer/Imager discussion}}
+=== Notes ===
+Authorship policy on papers/abstracts
+  * Shaul: proposal, for each abstract poll EC and relevant WGs. People then ask to be included.
+    * Raphael: just small group on abstract? or endorsers as well?
+      * Shaul: these are just updates, not final word. so endorsers not needed.  Will be needed for final report.
+  * No objections.
+Update from Fundamental Physics Group (Raphael)
+  * comparing low-res and hi-res cases (140cm vs 50cm)
+  * forecasts with foregrounds. synchrotron from WMAP/Planck. dust is 2-component Finkbeiner.
+    * no frequency decorrelation between foregrounds
+  * foreground removal via minimum variance ILC
+  * done for polarization
+  * more work to extend to r. as foregrounds have larger effect.  Need more tools for that estimation.
+    * current presentation is signals in T and TE.
+    * Shaul: also calculate r limits with no foregrounds, for reference.
+  * parameter forcasts done.
+    * all at 70% of sky.  CL: this is reasonable.
+    * for LCDM, 2 cases very similar
+    * LCDM + X, goes from competative with S4 (Neff) to not. 140 cm to 50 cm.
+      * Neff is large sacrifice.  Neff is at 70% of sky
+    * delensing also worse with lo-res.
+       * hi-res has A_lens 17%, lo-res is ~ 2x higher.  still running.
+  * large mission needed to do delensing and Neff in PICO.
+    * Charles: a probe mission needs to be able to do all analysis with its own data. Not relying on other data sets that are lower quality.
+    * Raphael: if combining with S4 noise is likely ok, but S4 has less sky coverage.
+    * Amy: risk in proposing with dependency on other data.
+      * Shaul: saying PICO only worth pursuing after data sets PICO depends on are complete or nearly so.
+  * Shaul: PICO small, like LITEBird, foreground cleaning method unclear.  Would need a way to say small experiment looking at reionization peak can put low limits on r.
+    * Al: could do imager at < 200 GHz for low foregrounds and reionization peak.  plus spectrometer for high frequency.  does high frequency from space.
+      * Raphael: could be good straight B-mode mission.
+Spectrometer/Imager discussion (continues above suggestions)
+  * Shaul's science matrix. in process. Goal: capture science of imager and spectrometer. missing galactic science
+  * spectrometer science
+    * Al: constraints on mu with no detection are still useful.  best limit on primordial spectrum and running. also give probe on light DM canidates via their annihlation.
+    * remove foregrounds, some doubt this is the method needed. Al convinced spectrometer is needed.
+    * CIB -- get evolution of star formation and cold gas. mini-PIXIE does this in CII, some CO transitions.
+      * Shaul: quantify S/N. explain measurement, analysis, which constrains ____. Provide this story for final table.
+        * Eric: this is being worked on in community.  process is still evolving in field.
+        * Jamie: at low redshift, can this be done with big beam?
+          * Eric: must cross correlate. probes linear scales which is good.  Will think more about science case story.
+          * Shaul: hard for an evolving method to be a strong science driver.
+  * Imager science:
+    * fundamental physics (see Raphael's presentation),
+    * extra-galactic science (in process). hi-resolution important for these point sources.
+    * galactic science to be added (also discussed in past telecon)
+  * General discussion:
+    * Al: pixie review comments,
+      * panel didn't see need for space was compelling.  if ground based observes r first, then PIXIE isn't worth it.
+      * Jamie: was this because PIXIE wouldn't give the definitive measurement? As was done for past CMB observables.
+        * Al: not clear.
+        * Lloyd: reviewer missed something. we need to communicate context better in case when mission follows a ground based detection.
+        * Al: seems that NASA perception is once B-mode detected no further work is needed.  Alternative argument needs to be made clearly.
+      * Shaul: panel questioning if inflation is a 1 number science (r). need to address this for imager or spectrometer PICO.  Could avoid by proposing Super-PIXE and get other observables as focus.
+        * Jamie: if spectrometer can test inflation from different observables that is a nice story.
+          * Shaul: not clear that small PIXIE can do this. so not so exciting.
+          * Charles: agree. big spectrometer is more interesting.   Responding to 'are you done if r measured from ground?  Imager gets r and tau.  Many experiments assuming tau, but need space to measure this.  r and tau measured at level unachievable from ground are enough to justify probe.  The rest is gravy.
+            * Al: that's what PIXIE promised, but wasn't selected.
+       * Lloyd: what about pushing on broader anisotropies questions?
+       * Charles: having 1 primary goal + bonus has been a better pitch.
+       * Lloyd: if r is detected, then push to map power spectrum to reionization peak, needed to see scale invariant spectrum to largest scales.  The confirmation itself is important, mapping the power spectrum.
+         * Raphael: not sure there are models that do this. reionizaiton bump useful to measure spectral index.

User Tools

Differences

Page Tools