Yes, but they aren't sure what they're measuring. Remember that science (and Occam's razor) requires us to apply the most pedestrian explanations first, like some overlooked experimental error, not new physics. The "new physics" explanation should be the last possibility considered, not the first.
This similar study comes to a much less encouraging conclusion (the abstract acurately summarizes the study):
> Occam's razor is a good guide, but it is not a rule the universe is obliged to follow.
It seems to be, actually, because the rule follows straight from probability theory :).
> The point of the experiment is to zero out all pedestrian explanations.
Doesn't mean they did account for all of them. But that's why they're publishing. They've done all they could, they still get the unexpected effect, so it's time for other researchers to try it and at some point we will finally determine whether it's an error or new physics :).
Yes, but they aren't sure what they're measuring. Remember that science (and Occam's razor) requires us to apply the most pedestrian explanations first, like some overlooked experimental error, not new physics. The "new physics" explanation should be the last possibility considered, not the first.
This similar study comes to a much less encouraging conclusion (the abstract acurately summarizes the study):
https://tu-dresden.de/ing/maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/ressourcen/...