Bicep2-list September 2013

bicep2-list@lists.fas.harvard.edu

16 participants
49 discussions

by Walt Ogburn

Hi all, I have a new posting with per-pair galactic maps. The goal is to check for consistency of polarization angles within BICEP2 (and perhaps later between BICEP2 and Keck Array). I find a number of odd features in various channels. http://bicep0.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130909_gal_po… - Walt

10 years, 8 months

Re: [Bicep2-list] post on consistency of B2 and Keck

by Clem Pryke

Hi Walt, > In today's telecon we talked about whether a 1 degree polarization > rotation can affect the measures of Keck/BICEP2 agreement, even if > it's too small to make a substantial dent in BB below ell=200. You know in Jon's post it looks like the contribution at ell=100 from alpha=1.1 deg is really small... Would be great if this helped though. Clem -- ********************************************************************** Clem Pryke - Associate Professor - Physics University of Minnesota, Room 313 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455 Tel: 612-624-7578 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: pryke(a)physics.umn.edu **********************************************************************

10 years, 8 months

Re: [Bicep2-list] post on consistency of B2 and Keck

by Clem Pryke

> Oh, does reduc_makeaps not require you to have transformed to E and B > aready ? reduc_makeaps eats Q/U maps (or now ac struct) and makes spectra. Clem -- ********************************************************************** Clem Pryke - Associate Professor - Physics University of Minnesota, Room 313 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455 Tel: 612-624-7578 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: pryke(a)physics.umn.edu **********************************************************************

10 years, 8 months

Re: [Bicep2-list] post on consistency of B2 and Keck

by Clem Pryke

Hi Walt, > I think the most correct recipe would be to apply a rotation > matrix to the sin and cos fields in the ac structure of the real-data > coadd, then re-run reduc_final. I think you can just modify reduc_makeaps to rotate the finalized Q/U maps before taking spectra - should be easy - I think it has been done before. Beware that reduc_makeaps at the head of cvs has had substantial changes made - you should use the pre change version to keep things compatible with the sims. Clem -- ********************************************************************** Clem Pryke - Associate Professor - Physics University of Minnesota, Room 313 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455 Tel: 612-624-7578 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: pryke(a)physics.umn.edu **********************************************************************

10 years, 8 months

Re: [Bicep2-list] post on consistency of B2 and Keck

by Clem Pryke

It's a great question Walt. I had thought to tune the pol rotation by re-making the real map making. But I suspect you are right and we can instead tune it in the coadd maps. Clem -- ********************************************************************** Clem Pryke - Associate Professor - Physics University of Minnesota, Room 313 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455 Tel: 612-624-7578 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: pryke(a)physics.umn.edu **********************************************************************

10 years, 8 months

post on consistency of B2 and Keck

by Clem Pryke

I have made a posting probing consistency of B2 and Keck: http://bicep0.caltech.edu/~spuder/analysis_logbook/analysis/20130904_b2keck… Things have improved a little since the last post on May 30 - the grievous inconsistency of B2xB2 and B2xKeck has softened to approx 1% probability. I also include some tests of the B2xRx0, B2xRx1 etc cross spectra. These have a bit more spread than we expect from sims but not a strong result. Please each of you take a look at this and see if you can come up with better ways to test - likely the somewhat random statistics I have come up with here are not the end of the story. Clem -- ********************************************************************** Clem Pryke - Associate Professor - Physics University of Minnesota, Room 313 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455 Tel: 612-624-7578 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: pryke(a)physics.umn.edu **********************************************************************

10 years, 8 months

Re: [Bicep2-list] [Bispud-pipeline-list] BICEP2 TB/EB posting up

by Clem Pryke

> Perhaps I'm making something out of nothing OK - now I see what you are talking about. These are low significance shifts and I am prepared to put them down to random chance. Clem -- ********************************************************************** Clem Pryke - Associate Professor - Physics University of Minnesota, Room 313 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455 Tel: 612-624-7578 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: pryke(a)physics.umn.edu **********************************************************************

10 years, 8 months

Re: [Bicep2-list] [Bispud-pipeline-list] BICEP2 TB/EB posting up

by Clem Pryke

> I've also added the TB+EB rotation angle theory lines to figure 2 > (black) and changed the individual spectra rotation angle theory > lines to magenta. Please note the meaning of black and magenta lines in the posting. > I'm still concerned about this: deprojection of differential ellipticity > has a large effect on Keck's EB. From Stefan and Sarah's chi^2 > pager posting, it looks like dp+rg+diff ellipticity (or all four) > induces an EB that is not present in just dp+rg or dp+rg+diff beam width. Huh? It's the reverse isn't it? - adding diff ellip reduces EB in Keck doesn't it? Clem -- ********************************************************************** Clem Pryke - Associate Professor - Physics University of Minnesota, Room 313 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455 Tel: 612-624-7578 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: pryke(a)physics.umn.edu **********************************************************************

10 years, 8 months

Re: [Bicep2-list] planck dust contamination

by Clem Pryke

Hi Jamie, >> Can the noise of a cross spectrum taken against the B2 T map really >> only be a few uK^2? > I think so, I've just checked my cross spectra code and I don't think > I have any obvious errors. That is really amazing to me that the B2 T modes don't inject more noise - they are 100's of uK - right? Clem -- ********************************************************************** Clem Pryke - Associate Professor - Physics University of Minnesota, Room 313 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455 Tel: 612-624-7578 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: pryke(a)physics.umn.edu **********************************************************************

10 years, 8 months

Re: [Bicep2-list] [Bispud-pipeline-list] BICEP2 TB/EB posting up

by Clem Pryke

Jon, You are using the output file from reduc_final - this never reads sim type 9. The input model for the s+n sims you are using contains no B-modes. We can see this clearly as the light gray lines in your fig 3 clearly don't contain the r=0.1 bump. Please remove the r=0.1 addition to the theory curve in your fig 3 - it is extremely misleading/confusing. Clem -- ********************************************************************** Clem Pryke - Associate Professor - Physics University of Minnesota, Room 313 Tate, 116 Church Street S.E. Minneapolis, MN, 55455 Tel: 612-624-7578 Fax: 612-624-4578 email: pryke(a)physics.umn.edu **********************************************************************

10 years, 8 months

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Bicep2-list September 2013