Thank you for providing that research, I wasn't aware of that paper. But when I read it, I found something interesting. "The final precision could be reached

Thank you for providing that research, I wasn't aware of that paper. But when I read it, I found something interesting. "The final precision could be reached by integrating over more than 130 000 rotations relying on a careful suppression of systematic effects caused by the turntable rotation" I wondered what effects they were suppressing, and while they discuss that to some extent they also say: "While even faster rotation would have allowed to acquire more data and thus improve statistics, it resulted in increased residual systematic effects presumably due to modulated centrifugal forces and was thus not implemented" And they state: "active rotation potentially causes a systematic modulation of the beat frequency and might thus mimic an anisotropy signal. For exam- ple, gravitational or centrifugal forces that act on the resonators may get modulated with the turntable rota- tion and therefore modulate the length of the resonators." So I would ask, how do we distinguish between new physics and systematic errors that look like new physics and need to be excluded from the experiment?