Not really...
If Johannes thinks he can challenge ANY of my work, well, he really can't... I presented my work in front of leaders in the field and some of them didn't like the results, but my data was good...
Johannes selectively quoted the abstract, the entire abstract is:
Evolution of atomic ionization into the strong-field limit offers the opportunity to study the fundamentals of atom-laser interaction. In this study, we report on high precision measurements of the ion and electron distributions from laser-excited helium and neon atoms which reflect the changing continuum dynamics as the ionization process evolves into the pure tunneling regime. The experiments present evidence of both single- and two-electron ionization. These data provide a direct quantitative test of various theories of strong-field ionization. We show that a relatively simple semiclassical model which includes a description of a field-driven electron elastically rescattering from an accurate ion core potential reproduces the measured electron distributions for both atoms. However, using this model to calculate e-2e inelastic rescattering yields cross sections which are incompatible with the measured two-electron ionization.
There was an unexplained feature in the data, we looked at how a "simple semi-classical model" that worked very well in some ways, failed in others- by looking at this model and where it worked and where it failed we hoped to get an idea of what physics needed to be added to the simple model. That paper was published early in our studies, but it was a good paper... The way I remember those years is that we were mainly trying to collect the data that would allow us to distinguish between what models worked and which didn't- the work we did was successful in doing that to a large degree...
If Johannes is under the impression that I am anything less than proud of the work that I have done, well, he is greatly mistaken. I can easily defend all of it. I was an experimentalist- the only way to attack my results is to claim I made an experimental error- my experiment was quite prone to possible experimental error so I spent most of my time doing test experiments to show that all possible sources of experimental error had been eliminated- I successfull did this to the satisfaction of the experts in the field.
The final experiment using an apparatus that I designed and built (This took years) was VERY successful... and I had to defend it many times in talks and presentations.
Funny thing is, in a few years Johannes will be posting his nonsense from a computer powered by a chip that was made using a process that was developed at my last job- I doubt he can see the irony...