TCP SWG Notes 2014/11/24

(notes taken by PD)

Participants:

Paul Demorest, Geoff Bower, Michael Rupen, Tzu-Ching Chang, Jim Braatz, Avery Broderick, Bryan Butler, Walter Max-Moerbeck, Greg Hallinan, Jim Cordes, Tim Bastian, Dan Marrone

Notes

Intro, Geoff: need to prepare for AAS workshop. Kawabe (SOC invite) declined. Bryan: replacement has been invited (someone else from Japan, not sure who). Geoff: we have asked Michael Kramer to talk about GC pulsars, who has agreed. We have 1 hour total -- 30 min Michael, 30 min additional?

GC Pulsars, Jim C: How much overlap with MeerKAT / SKA-mid? (some general discussion of what MeerKAT/SKA will/won't do, and when). Argument could be made either way that this is more of a MeerKAT/SKA topic? Seems to be some difference of opinion on this.

Michael: presentations for EVLA-II/NMArray on wiki, describing time-domain imaging of "things that explode." Was well received by NSF(?) when originally presented.

Cosmology, Geoff: Some previously suggested topics: megamasers (H0 / BH mass); resolving binary AGN; dz/dt; evolution of fundamental consts; intensity mapping. What is compelling / what are we missing?

Intensity mapping, Dan: intrinsically above 15 GHz; cross-correlate other catalogs with observed CO; extract otherwise unrecoverable signals. (upcoming instruments for x-corr LSST, DESI) Bryan: should we consider full-time survey mode "radio LSST"? Dan: mapping speed more important that point-source sensitivity for this; may be mismatch with current design?

Geoff, discussion of "revolutionary vs evolutionary"

Microlensing (Avery?): radio survey could double sample of stellar mass BH each year. Geoff: how many sources need to be monitored for 10 events per year? Update on wiki.

Tzu-Ching: dz/dt is argument for next-gen optical (ELT/etc). Geoff: could also be done with ALMA? Dicussion of lensing, recap of previous talk of strong lensing (argument was that it's more interesting for individual source astrophyics instead of cosmology); what about weak lensing? Source counts decline with freq so becomes less sensitive at high freqs, ~1 GHz better.

Synoptic surveys: Gregg: FOV reduced at high freqs, maybe more of a followup instrument? Should look at survey speed wrt long-GRB orphan afterglows. Michael: could think about adding PAFs to a subset of the instrument to use as a survey instrument. Gregg: sweet spot between ~10-20 GHz for long GRB afterglows, instrument should be unique for this.

GW counterparts: Gregg: might not win due to optically thin at high freqs.

What to present at AAS: Geoff will outline a few things to have a target to shoot at. Who will be present -- email Geoff if you are going.

-- PaulDemorest - 2014-12-11