Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
private:teleconsnotes20190206 [2019/02/06 14:52] – hanany | private:teleconsnotes20190206 [2019/02/06 16:26] (current) – kyoung | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
====== Telecon Notes Feb. 6, 2019 ====== | ====== Telecon Notes Feb. 6, 2019 ====== | ||
- | Attendance: | + | Attendance: |
Notes by: Karl \\ | Notes by: Karl \\ | ||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
* {{: | * {{: | ||
+ | * Good progress. ~one week to finish | ||
+ | * {{: | ||
* Talk + posters at [[https:// | * Talk + posters at [[https:// | ||
+ | * First Author + "PICO Collaboration"? | ||
+ | * First + All? | ||
+ | * First + EC? | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Notes === | ||
+ | |||
+ | Report status | ||
+ | * SH: Good progress implementing various comments and condensing text. ~one week to finish | ||
+ | * {{: | ||
+ | * SH: shows figure of merit proportional to 1/(vol of uncertainty in parameter space) for various LCDM plus extension models. | ||
+ | * SH: Is this worth including? Difficult to decided because I haven' | ||
+ | * AT: neat and interesting, | ||
+ | * SH: A text section explaining this calculation and argument exists. It's ~3/4 of a page. So additional text would only be 1-2 sentences. | ||
+ | * AT: plot shows PICO improves on past, also seems to suggest CMB work will continue forever! | ||
+ | * TP: y-axis parameter needs explanation. not clear to me what it is so large, 10^20s | ||
+ | * AT: there is a nice message of COBE--> | ||
+ | * JD: there are people (at least in Europe, SH:and elsewhere!) that think Planck cleaned up everything so there is nothing left to do. This counters that sentiment. | ||
+ | * AE: surprising that LCDM improves from Planck--> | ||
+ | * SH/JD: Because planck is cosmic variance (CV) limited in TT, but PICO is CV limited in TT, EE, BB. | ||
+ | * SH: we'll **add LCDM (6 parameters) to plot legend** so it's clear that it is plain LCDM. | ||
+ | * TP: slope is emphasized by lines, but really is a step function. | ||
+ | * TP: where do ground experiments fall on this plot? Change it? | ||
+ | * SH: a good (and natural) question. | ||
+ | * JD: agree it is difficult. it's hard to say when / if ground experiments are CV limited on these parameters. due to foregrounds, | ||
+ | * SH: worth extending Tim's question to CMB ground + other experiments like LSST, Euclid, DESI, . . . | ||
+ | * JD: response to 'CMB forever' | ||
+ | * SH: this would be very good. concerned about an infinitely small beam since that isn't feasible. | ||
+ | * JD: the noise level is more important as noise + the CMB damping tail sets an l_max that isn't much less than arcmin scales. CORE calculations show beam size stops mattering for small beams. | ||
+ | * AT: Being able to say "PICO is the final CMB mission" | ||
+ | * TP: This could also justify the current instrument choices for PICO. Showing that $1B gets X amount of science while $10B doesn' | ||
+ | * **SH + JD + Eleonora to talk offline** about how to add some CV limits. | ||
+ | * JD: minor note, chose WMAP at 2013 which makes a big jump for Planck. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Talk + posters at [[https:// | ||
+ | * SH: posters at USRA in few months, abstracts due tomorrow. | ||
+ | * AT: for USRA author list is part of abstract and counts against length. So list all ~60 authors is just not practical. | ||
+ | * SH: EC + first author doesn' | ||
+ | * TP: could do, Present + PICO collab. Then put full author list on bottom of poster is small font. | ||
+ | * AT: citing the arxiv version of the report gives a route to people finding the full author list. | ||
+ | * JD: Some funding to support PICO came from Europe. | ||
+ | * SH: Also are funding acknowledgements in report. | ||
+ | * SH: For abstracts we'll do "first author, PICO collaboration" | ||
+ | * All: no objections. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ |