Does this new quantum experiment rule out the possibility of a many-worlds interpretation? This brand new published result (nature):

Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system by
  Radek Lapkiewicz,    Peizhe Li,  Christoph Schaeff,  Nathan K. Langford,     Sven Ramelow,   Marcin Wieśniak     & Anton Zeilinger

(see here, for a more popular article about it see here; also for a pre-print see the ArXiv here)
seems to support the Copenhagen interpretation.
My question Does this definitely rule out the many-worlds interpretation - or are there still loopholes? How could a many-worlds interpretation of this experiment possibly look like (if possible)?
Thank you
EDIT
Because I obviously created some confusion, how I came to that question: at the end of the NewScientist-article it says:

Niels Bohr, a giant of quantum
  physics, was a great proponent of the
  idea that the nature of quantum
  reality depends on what we choose to
  measure, a notion that came to be
  called the Copenhagen interpretation.
  "This experiment lends more support to
  the Copenhagen interpretation," says
  Zeilinger.

 A: They don't make any claim in the paper about interpretations of quantum theory, either for the Copenhagen interpretation or against many-worlds interpretations. Nor does the Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 20403 (2008) that they cite as their principal theoretical source. The Vienna group's stated intention here, as, I think, in a number of papers over the last few years, has been to try to rule out contextual classical particle models for experiments. This is to me something of a straw man, but they have been hacking away at it.
I was going to ask that you expand your Question to say why you think this experiment supports the Copenhagen interpretation over other interpretations, because I do not see that to be the case, but I finally saw the off the cuff remark to that effect from Zeilinger at the very end of the New Scientist article [you should have cited this]. That's definitely not enough to rule out many-worlds interpretations without a much more substantial argument. There isn't, so far, enough of an argument to have loopholes in it.
