The paper was published in Nature Communications and its preprint was discussed widely for two years, so there is probably no flaws which could be easily picked up.
“The conceptual experiment has been debated with gusto in physics circles for more than two years — and has left most researchers stumped, even in a field accustomed to weird concepts. “I think this is a whole new level of weirdness,” says Matthew Leifer, a theoretical physicist at Chapman University in Orange, California.
The authors, Daniela Frauchiger and Renato Renner of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich, posted their first version of the argument online in April 2016. The final paper appears in Nature Communications on 18 September1.”
The paper was published in Nature Communications and its preprint was discussed widely for two years, so there is probably no flaws which could be easily picked up.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06749-8
“The conceptual experiment has been debated with gusto in physics circles for more than two years — and has left most researchers stumped, even in a field accustomed to weird concepts. “I think this is a whole new level of weirdness,” says Matthew Leifer, a theoretical physicist at Chapman University in Orange, California.
The authors, Daniela Frauchiger and Renato Renner of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich, posted their first version of the argument online in April 2016. The final paper appears in Nature Communications on 18 September1.”
I identified one paper, and it cites another that also claims this is flawed. Don’t see a reason to believe the original paper over those