TallDave wrote:Sorry, I just don't find analyses that contradict what the experimenters are telling us very interesting. If Art wants to assume Rick hasn't actually seen WB confinement, fine, he's certainly entitled to do that given that nothing is published. I'm much more interested in analyses that would tend to explain what we're told has been measured, and how those might scale in larger machines.
rnebel wrote:Here's where I'm coming from. Obviously, I know what's in the data and I know what it is consistent with. We've known that for several months. However, just because a piece of data is consistent with one model doesn't mean that it's inconsistent with another model. When you compare data and theory, the best you can say is "it's consistent with...." .