For example, the JILA team identified 14 intermediate states -- seven times as many as previously observed --
Better instruments revealed all sorts of hidden dynamics that were obscured over the last 17 years when using conventional technology.
Note the word "observed" I'm going to guess
that he's talking about experimentally observed which is not the same as being identified by FAH. The words "using conventional technology" seem to confirm my assumption -- though my assumption still may be wrong.
FAH's general methodology starts a study with projects that start from random configurations rather than a single fully folded or fully unfolded shape. Those random trajectories examine all sorts of different shapes and progress through intermediate shapes OTHER THAN those starting from a single configuration. This random search identifies many intermediate shapes and they extract dwell periods on a similar basis to those he identifies with 8 microseconds. It's computationally "impossible" to find them without this initial phase of random searches.
Once the scientist is convinced of the statistical basis of identify (using his numbers) either 7 or 14 intermediate shapes a secondary study is initiated from each of those intermediate shapes to determine a statistical basis for what I'll call "What happens next if it happens to reach this particular intermediate shape?"
Except for the fact that he seems unaware of FAH's methodology, his conclusions agree with FAH's, such as
If you miss most of the intermediate states, then you don't really understand the system.
Many other in silico
(computerized) studies have focused on correlating the initial and final states, ignoring the intermediate details ... and that's an important reason why FAH is so computationally intensive.
The big breakthough described in that article is that in vitro
studies are catching up with many of the results that FAH already knows.