> Do we wait around for someone else to cook up a batch of similar secret sauce to confirm the result? It took you folks 20 years to redo the experiment. Inde

> Do we wait around for someone else to cook up a batch of similar secret sauce to confirm the result? It took you folks 20 years to redo the experiment. Independent lattice calculations have already been underway for some time; I would expect (but I won't promise, not working on the topic myself and not having any particular insider information) results on the year-or-two timescale. > Will they release their gauge configurations after some embargo period? BMW probably will not do this. In their recent Nature paper they do say that upon request they'll give you a CPU code BUT when they provide a nerfed CPU code that produces the same numbers, rather than their performant production code. ... annoying. > Or should we believe them just because they are top-notch? Well, maybe? Why do you believe the theory initiative's determination of the vacuum polarization or the hadronic light-by-light? Some how it's more sensible to back out those things by fitting experimental data than by doing a direct QCD calculation? There's no free parameters in a QCD calculation, but fitting... well, give me a fifth and I can wiggle the elephant's trunk. > I've seen top-notch groups like this fall before, so it seems quite reasonable if experiments aren't citing them now. I think it's wrong not to hedge the experimental results and it's wrong not to cite them, but I understand why experimentalists wouldn't take their result as final either.