I'm not convinced of that interpretation of MM. MM found a signal below the margin of error. I think if they spun the table faster the signal would grow in strength. But subsequent experiments stopped rotating the assembly at all and just relied on the rotation of earth, and thus had even slower rotation and even smaller signals.
But at this point nobody is going to revisit MM, attempting to do so would immediately ruin your scientific reputation.
> The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place.
The data doesn't look anything like a signal, and wiki also says:
> Roberts (2006) has pointed out that the primitive data reduction techniques used by Miller and other early experimenters, including Michelson and Morley, were capable of creating apparent periodic signals even when none existed in the actual data.
> But subsequent experiments stopped rotating the assembly at all and just relied on the rotation of earth
> Our measurement compares the resonance frequencies of two orthogonal optical resonators that are implemented in a single block of fused silica and are rotated continuously on a precision air bearing turntable
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?
I would love to revisit MM myself, but I don't have the expertise to actually setup the experiment. I might be able to resolve that gap, but I definitely don't have the funding either, and that is a gap I don't know how to solve.
But at this point nobody is going to revisit MM, attempting to do so would immediately ruin your scientific reputation.