Revised version 22 October : Updated to incorporate minor changes in composition of subgroups 14 September 2006 Re: (1) Modification of the draft outline and formation of subworking groups to produce a draft science case proposal (2) Meeting 25-27 October of the working groups Dear Members of the Science Working Group: Thank you for the many responses commenting on the outline and offering to contribute to the preparation of the draft. The outline has been modified in the light of the suggestions made. In cases where it may not have been clear whether certain topics should be added, I have chosen to add them, so that a case can be made and subsequently discussed. At this point, the purpose is to assemble some text so that we may discuss something concrete at the meeting at the end of October and iterate. We may wish to re-arrange the sections later---for example, how much of other sources of B modes should go in sect. 4 and how much into the sections on secondary science exploitation is unclear at this point. The style should be straightforward and not too specialized. It should be written at a level understandable to astrophysicists in other fields, who are not necessarily specialists in the CMB. References to the literature should be provided where appropriate. I provide at the end of this message some very simple LATEX macros to facilitate merging and editing later on. Please avoid unessential macros and formatting. Under each subsection I list a number of people who have volunteered (and in some cases who have not yet volunteered and are yet to be confirmed). Given the number of volunteers, I have decided to assign coordinators to each of the sections. The role of the section coordinators will be to discuss at the beginning who wishes to contribute what and establish some sort of work plan, and near the end to assemble a common text by 20 October, which in turn will be collected into a single draft to be distributed before the meeting on 25-27 October. Contributions should be sent to bpol@th.u-psud.fr by each of the section coordinators. In assigning people to sections, I have generally given people the sections that they have requested, trying when possible, in particular when people have expressed willingness to work in several different areas, to ensure that all sections are adequately covered. If you have not been assigned to a section that you really would like to work on, please send me an e-mail right away and we can make adjustments. Also let me point out that given the large number of e-mails that I have received regarding BPOL, it is quite possible that I have inadvertently misplaced some or not given them the attention they deserve. If this is the case, please e-mail me as well. In order to facilitate communication and manage the various mailing lists, I have set up for each of the three working groups a GNU Mailman List/Archive. The object is to facilitate an on-going discussion on the draft and related science questions. Consequently, members of the science case working group are strongly encouraged to submit appropriate contributions to the list. This message is being sent by the GNU Mailman list called "bpol_science_wg". Consequently, if you just received this message you are on the list. Please take a look at the science working group list at http://www.th.u-psud.fr/mailman/roster/bpol_science_wg to verify that all your colleagues who should be subscribed are in fact subscribed and address all requests for additions to bpol@th.u-pusd.fr. To post a message to the archive, simply send e-mail to: bpol_science_wg@th.u-psud.fr The size of attachments is limited to 1M, so for bigger files, either a link to somewhere on your web site should be provided, or arrangements should be made for placing these files on the BPol web site, which is located at http://www.th.u-psud.fr/bpol/ Messages sent to bpol_science_wg@th.u-psud.fr are moderated to filter out spam and then sent to all list subscribers and archived on the web site. Analogous lists have been set up for the Foreground and Instrument working groups, and their names are bpol_fg_wg and bpol_instr_wg. I look forward to your contributions and to seeing you at the end of October. Regarding the workshop, for the Science Case Working Group session, I would like to solicit suggestions for the agenda. A part of the time should be devoted to discussion of the draft, but we should also try to discuss key open questions for the proposal, and I would much welcome your ideas of which questions should be taken up at the meeting. Best regards Martin Bucher Science Case Working Group Coordinator bucher@th.u-psud.fr PS Please note that the workshop web page is located at: http://www.th.u-psud.fr/bpol/WGMeetings.html Please register. Past documents on BPol and relevant e-mails are available at http://www.th.u-psud.fr/bpol/WGMeetings.html for those who have recently been added to the list. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- REVISED OUTLINE - Version 14 SEPTEMBER 2006 [Section coordinators are indicated by an asterisk *] 0. Executive summary (approx 3-5 pages) 1. Introduction (3-4 pages) M. Bucher, (F. Bouchet*), C. Burigana, and P. De Bernardis (to prepare an initial draft) These two sections are more a synopsis. PRIMARY SCIENCE GOAL - DETECTING B MODES FROM INFLATION 2. Inflation and fundamental physics (4-6 pages) [In this section the basics of inflation are reviewed and its relation to fundamental physics is emphasized. Eg what impact will knowing the inflationary potential have on string and M theory.] 3. Gravity waves from inflation and the B mode polarization (3-4+ pages) Quantitative discussion of predictions of inflation for the B mode. Question of what level of T/S can one expect from inflationary potentials. What would a potential null detection teach us. For sections 2 and 3: (P Ferreira*), S Leach, M Bucher, N Turok, F Finelli, S Matarrese, L Popa, A Melchiorri, K Land 4. Others sources of B mode polarization (4-6+ pages) This section should mainly be a expository review what are the other possibilities. Some of these would be analyzed in the section titled secondary science goal. 4a Gravitational lensing [same group of people as for section 7] Here just a short synopsis with a figure. 4b Cosmic strings and other topological defects -- R Battye 4c Primordial Magnetic Fields - M. Langer (TBC) 4d Patchy reionization - N Aghanim (TBC) 4c Primordial Non-Gaussianity from non-linearities from inflation [Same authors as for sect. 8] 5. Distinguishing the primordial B modes from the lensing background (4+ pages) If the main science goal of BPol is to detect B modes from inflation, we must demonstrate that this it is feasible to the claimed sensitivity. This section would provide a detailed analysis supporting our claims. (F. Finelli *), A. Lewis, M. Bucher, N. Balbi, V. Aquaviva, J. Diego SECONDARY SCIENCE EXTRACTABLE FROM THE BPOL DATA 6. Added value of improved maps of the T and E anisotropies This section would contain an assessment of the science extractable from improved measurement of the E mode (and, if any, of improved measurement of the T mode at low-l) [By this I mean, value-added with respect to PLANCK and other measurements. BPOL will have a coarser resolution but highly sensitivity. Will the higher sensitivity really contribute something of value given that the maps from PLANCK will be cosmic variance limited. This is the question.] (F Hansen *), JA Rubino-Martin, A Melchiorri, E Branchini, P Mazzotta, L Popa Silvio Bonometto, Loris Colombo and Roberto Fabbri J. Diego, Michele Liguori, V Natale, E Carretti, G Bernardi, R Fabri -Discussion of what one can learn about re-ionization in the above section. 7. Exploitation of the Gravitational Lensing Signal K. Benabed, (J. Lesgourgues, L. Perotto*), C. Carbonne, C Baccigalupi, S. Matarrese, A Melchiorri 8. Added value for detection of primordial non-Gaussianity Moscardini, (S. Matarrese*), M. Liguori, N. Bartolo, A. Riotto 9. Misc. --- Vector modes - A. Melchiorri,....... Circular polarization - A. Melchiorri,......... [Any other ideas that come up not fitting elsewhere in this outline cane be placed in this section provisionally.] 7. Analysis of the need to go to space (5+ pages) One of the main arguments that we will have to overcome is showing that the same science cannot be done from the ground, or that a detection from the ground will require confirmation from a space base experiment. This section should contain a detailed analysis of these questions. (J. Bartlett, A. Jaffe *), F. Bouchet, A. Challinor, R. Battye, R. Stompor, P Natoli 8. Science requirements (4+ pages) [Conclusions of science case and foreground considerations.] (To be prepared in collaboration with the other two working groups). [This probably should be deferred till after the conference, because coordination with the other WGs is required.] P. De Bernardis et al. 9. Data analysis (4+ pages) Mapmaking and other issues related to B mode extraction (To be prepared in collaboration with the foreground working group.) (R. Stompor*), A Jaffe, J Bartlett, P Natoli, S Prunet TBC, E Hivon TBC, Carlo Baccigalupi 10. Galactic Science (to be organized)