Differences

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

--- private:teleconsnotes20180418 [2018/04/18 14:50] – hanany
+++ private:teleconsnotes20180418 [2018/04/25 12:41] (current) – hanany
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== Telecon Notes April 18, 2018  ======
-Attendance:
+Attendance: Shaul, Dan, Bill, Charles, Nick, Amy
 Notes by: Karl
@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 === Agenda ===
+  * [[https://github.com/CMB-Probe/PICOReport|Github Repo]]
   * {{:private:picoreport.pdf|Report outline}}; [[https://zzz.physics.umn.edu/ipsig/cmbprobe2016proposal|Our Proposal]] was arranged by science deliverables; {{:private:s4contents.png?30|}} and so is the S4 science book.
+  * {{:private:cmbprobe_lensingnoise.pdf|Interesting Figure from Alex Van Engelen}}
+=== Notes ===
+  * Github Repo
+    *
+  * Report outline, 50 page limit
+    * Our Proposal was arranged by science deliverables; and so is the S4 science book.
+    * Current outline follows working groups, science deliverables might make more sense.
+      * CL: Organizing science around what drives the design. So grouping things slightly differently. Improves flow of science into mission design.
+        * SH: So high frequency channels (galactic science) is one of these drivers.
+        * CL: yes, OK. Make it clear.
+      * CL: Extragalactic science includes some things that are more cosmological than astronomical object. Those could be separate.  Minor detail.
+      * CL: Complementarity also needs to be discussed.
+      * SH: Jamie advocated a joint PICO-S4 or space-ground white paper to discuss complementarity.
+      * CL: Attaching such a white paper would be effective for document to decadal.
+    * Decision: Section 3 rearrange to science deliverables. Separate science drivers and non-driving science.
+      * Also add ~0.5 page for complementarity with ground.
+    * **Shaul** will rearrange outline, so next week can discuss writing assignments and final those during workshop.
+  * AT: TeamX slides status.
+    * Instrument slides. Gave feedback, TeamX integrating comments.
+      * Probably final iteration, before release to EC.
+      * TeamX probably done in week timescale
+    * Today reviewing Mission slides.
+    * After these to rounds will release to EC.
+  * Interesting Figure from Alex Van Engelen, for APS talk.
+    * lensing potential, for EB estimator we seem to have lower noise.  EB is the more effective estimator.
+    * Bill: complementarity/competitiveness with S4 don't need to be mutually exclusive.
+    * General discussion: Why does PICO do better?  PICO has better E-mode measurement.
+      * SH: Why S4 better at TT, PICO better at EB?
+      * Dan: PICO beam means lose modes > ell 2000-ish. Lensing connects high ell to low, so those modes are valuable.
+    * SH: Other new from science groups.
+      * Nick estimates 140k SZ clusters; within ~10k of S4.
+      * Nick also estimate 9 meV limit on neutrino mass. using cluster counts. dN/dz
+        * SH: does this make sense?
+        * Dan: If using growth of structure you can avoid the absolute calibration (tau) and potentially do better. Don't know if this is what he did.
+        * SH: dN/dz also requires z, so more further work would be needed.
+        * Nick: not doing that here, still tau limited.
+          * Dan's 14 meV is also tau limited.
+          * may be details in the calculations that account for this difference?
+          * **Nick** will look into the details. see if there is additional information being added by PICO.

User Tools

Differences

Page Tools