Go to the U of M home page
School of Physics & Astronomy
Probe Mission Study Wiki

User Tools

Trace:
start:report_ais

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
start:report_ais [2018/12/01 15:13] – [Douglas Scott] dscottstart:report_ais [2018/12/05 14:31] (current) – [Michael Strauss] kyoung
Line 71: Line 71:
  
 Section 2.2.2 - Structure Formation via Gravitational Lensing part - "would represents" -> 'would represent" Section 2.2.2 - Structure Formation via Gravitational Lensing part - "would represents" -> 'would represent"
 +
 +-> Done
  
 Section 2.2.2 - Structure Formation via Gravitational Lensing part- It wasn't clear to me how you could "effectively cancel cosmic variance". [BTW I found this section compelling, it is one of the few where I have useful background!] Section 2.2.2 - Structure Formation via Gravitational Lensing part- It wasn't clear to me how you could "effectively cancel cosmic variance". [BTW I found this section compelling, it is one of the few where I have useful background!]
 +
 +-> Marcel: Edited slightly: "For instance, one can use correlations between large scale structure tracers with different clustering bias factors and measure the relative difference between their clustering power spectra to effectively cancel cosmic variance~\citep{2009PhRvL.102b1302S,2018PhRvD..97l3540S}; this can constrain..."
  
 Figure 11 - I don't understand what you are trying to show with the full sky and with the zoom ins (and why two zoom ins of the same region)? Figure 11 - I don't understand what you are trying to show with the full sky and with the zoom ins (and why two zoom ins of the same region)?
Line 137: Line 141:
 Cheers,  Michael Cheers,  Michael
  
-{{:start:strauss_comments.pdf|Strauss Comments}}  Karl and Shaul currently going through these handwritten comments (Nov. 28-29th)+{{:start:strauss_comments.pdf|Strauss Comments}}  Karl and Shaul currently going through these handwritten comments (Nov. 28-??)
  
  
Line 168: Line 172:
 Here's the last set of detailed comments on the science part (pages 20-35). Here's the last set of detailed comments on the science part (pages 20-35).
  
-   * {{:start:pico_lastsciencepages.pdf|Douglas' second round}}+   * {{:start:pico_lastsciencepages.pdf|Douglas' third round}} 
 + 
 +General comments on this part: 
 +   * It can't really be true (as stated in Table 2, that polarization has only been measured for one "dusty galaxy" - unless we have some restricted meaning (above some z and L?) 
 +   * The text says that Planck's resolution was too poor to detect individual proto-clusters - but I've written many papers on these, so that's just not true!  The easiest way to fix is is to say "too poor to resolve individual proto-clusters" - certainly Planck's 5' beamsize wasn't optimal for studying such sources, and PICO will be much better. 
 +   * Is it worth saying "SPHEREx if selected" - isn't that just a red flag for any SPHEREx fans?  The text doesn't use such language for other future projects. 
 +   * In the version I'm using, the text that straddles pages 23 and 24 is a HUGE red flag!  It's about the relative costs of ground-based versus space-based, and I don't think the wording as currently written would be agreed by everyone!  Please be VERY careful to reword this part - maybe there's a different way of spinning this whole thing to sound more positive about space without getting into the dangerous territory of making claims that not everyone agrees with?  We're surely not claiming that space is now cheap?! 
 +   * And why is there no explicit mention of CMB-S4 at this point? 
 +   * In fact CMB-S4 is introduced (I might even say buried) in the middle of Section 2.5.2, which seems very odd.  I think this comparison (and obviously the thing to do is stress the complementarity rather than the competition) needs to be called out more explicitly in a subserction of its own. 
 +   * Around the bottom of page 28 and top of page 29, I'd add some text (suggestions included on the pdf) about the possibility that the foregrounds will be more complicated than anticipated - this is a big issue in people's minds, and doing things properly with PICO is surely a major selling point. 
 +   * It seems odd that the discussion of systematics is a subsection of Section 2, rather than being a Section on its own. 
 +   * I became less and less of a fan of "IGW" as I read this.  Why introduce this new acronym?  Not everyone will know what it means, PLUS it assumes that the signal will be from inflation, which precludes the possibility that we'll measure something and find out that there's a non-inflationary eplanation (howwver unlikely that may seem, it seems unwise not to at least SOUND open-minded!).  Why not just say "primordial GW" or just "GW"? 
 +   * Are you required to write out all the authors in the reference list (it looks sloppy to me, like no effort was made to reduce the list to the first N). 
 +   * Lastly - I see that the technical parts of the report are in a completely different format.  I think that gives a very bad message, namely that the science and technology parts aren't fully integrated.  Maybe it's a lot of work, but it would be much better to format all of it the same way (maybe the intention is to do this before submission?) 
 + 
 ==== Masashi Hazumi ==== ==== Masashi Hazumi ====
  
start/report_ais.1543698785.txt.gz · Last modified: 2018/12/01 15:13 by dscott

Page Tools