From CMB-S4 wiki
Revision as of 09:18, 25 August 2017 by Jch (talk | contribs) (→‎Notes from session)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Back to Harvard-2017 main page

Parallel Session S1: high-ell science (Chairs: Jim Bartlett + Colin Hill) [Jefferson 250]

Updates on recent work / new ideas (~5 min each):

- Polarized SZ (Daan Meerburg) File:CMBS4 2017.pdf

- Joint tSZ/kSZ/rtSZ measurements with CCAT-p + other surveys (Mike Niemack) File:Cluster submm forecasts Niemack 20170825.pdf

- CMB halo lensing (Jim B.) File:Bartlett CMBHaloLensing.pdf

- kSZ (+tSZ) cross-correlations: directly calibrating baryonic effects on P(k) (Colin H.) File:JCH SZ.pdf

Discussion: - CDT report

  • Steve Allen Draft LSS High Ell link

- Our one-page science case draft.

- Our Science requirements and the instrument we think is needed to meet them; in particular, angular resolution and 270 GHz.

- How to engage the broader astro community. This is essential for the Decadal Process, and our science is important for this.

- Quantifying gains from S4 relative to/in conjunction with SO/CCAT-prime.

Notes from session

Synergies with other observatories:

- very cleanly selected sample of massive clusters out to the highest redshifts where they exist

- should statements be re-oriented to observatories that will be operational in ~late 2020s?

Instrumental requirements:

- how hard to push on FWHM=1 arcmin? clusters push this direction, but is there a strong cost driver to avoid?

- are there instrumental effects that are relevant for a ~several-meter telescope that need to be considered (which don't arise for smaller dishes)?

- necessity of 270 GHz (or even higher submm frequencies)? this is a driver of instrument requirements beyond N_eff --- should this science be moved to a "driver" priority level? questions about appropriate audience for CDT report (DOE/NSF/Decadal)

- suggestion: have CDT cost out other instrumental scenarios, including possibilities for higher frequencies and/or larger dishes. encourage CDT report to include language that is flexible enough to not rule out this type of science, which could be very appealing to the broader astronomical community in coming years (e.g., Decadal survey), i.e., not to rule out non-r/non-N_eff science.

- general feeling that the net cost of adding 270 GHz sensitivity is not a huge cost

Science action items:

- extension of cross-correlation case, both for astrophysics and cosmology

- other astronomical topics: transient science, Galactic science, solar system science (asteroids/planets), radio sources, infrared sources

- is the polarized SZ case robust enough to think about including? can we realistically improve upon Planck tau?

Action items/Next steps

Summarize action items here