  Three very different algorithms have been proposed for solution of the Rayleigh-Taylor turbulent mixing problem. They are based upon three different physical principles governing the Euler equations for fluid flow, which serve to complete these underspecified equations by selection of the physically relevant solution from among the many otherwise nonunique solutions of these equations. The disputed physical principle is the admissibility condition which selects the physically meaningful solution from among the myriad of nonphysical solutions. The three different algorithms, expressing the three physical admissibility principles, are formulated alternately in terms of the energy dissipation rate or the entropy production rate. The three alternatives are zero, minimal or maximal rates. The solutions are markedly different. We find strong validation evidence that supports the solution with the maximum rate of dissipated energy, based on a review of prior results and new results presented here. Our verification reasoning, consisting of mathematical analysis based on physics assumptions, also supports the maximum energy dissipation rate and reasons against the other two. The zero dissipation solution is based on claims of direct numerical simulation. We dispute these claims and introduce analysis indicating that such simulations are far from direct numerical simulations.   Recommendations for the numerical modeling of the deflagration to detonation transition in type Ia supernova are discussed. 
A crisis for the V&V of turbulence simulations