basically, the uncertainty principle still stands. what is being questioned is the application of the uncertainty principle to describe the relationship between measurement and the disturbance it creates, which has never been proven, but is commonly taught as an application.
Thanks! This makes some sense. It's basically saying that the uncertainty (if it still exists) is caused by something else than a disturbance from measurement?
It's not saying the uncertainty is from something else, but just the relationship of how much disturbance there is from a measurement is not fully understood and is not accurately described by the uncertainty principle.