I'm studying physics in the university. Does this mean my syllabus will finally change after so many decades?

How was my post stupid? Science may be exciting, but that doesn't justify using ridiculous titles like your or the one of the article you posted.

Well, I really know almost anything of the theory of relativity but yes, it's a bit hard to believe nothing could be faster than light under any conditions. I do believe that the theory of relativity is an excellent theory of... lots of stuff, but I'm sure even it has its limits - limits we may even have yet to discover. But that's why I study physics, to understand stuff better and maybe some day be a part of finding something new and exciting. I certainly don't know a lot yet but hey, I just started my second year of studies.

I knew it!! Star Trek was right!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15034852 skip to 2.30.

only he was suggesting other demensions and stuff.

Werekitten summed it up perfectly. Lets see whats going to happen now. It would be interesting if the observed effect was real, would lead to a lot interesting conclusions and discoveries.

So you don't understand one of the most incredible scientific theories ever, or rather don't know anything about it - Yet you want to bring your intuition into the game and make that a factor? You're going to have a big problem with quantum mechanics then - it's not intuitive at all.

" I do believe that the theory of relativity is an excellent theory of... lots of stuff"

>_>

If you're really studying physics then you should have learnt to let go of your intuition long ago and not trust your intuitive thoughts as they arise from subjective memory.

Well it can be explained by known (or theorised) phenomena. If a neutrino leaps between 2 points via wormhole rather than travelling between 2 points then if that leap is far enough, or a big enough number of little leaps happen, simply grossly measuring time between very distant points A and B makes it look like the particles are travelling faster than light when they are not. But to show FLT you have to know what the neutrinos are doing for that whole 732km journey to make sure they aren't cheating by taking a few leaps.

Science doesn't evolve if you want to stick to your old theories until the very end. Until I have enough knowledge not to do so, I'm going to doubt lots of things.

A question: Isn't a lot of the theory of relativity based on the assumption that causality works, ie. cause comes before consequence? How's that about intuition? Please correct me if I'm wrong (or ignore me if you think correcting me isn't worth it :P), like I said, I only recently started my second year so I'm really at the basics right now.

Unless it's quantified properly in a theoretical framework (including how, why, when, where and what kind of wormholes should appear only for neutrinos and then supposedly disappear) then it's not an explanation. At best it's a temptative theory, at worst it's just magical thinking: simply calling "wormholes" as soon you need to thwart the c limit is not much more of an explanation than invoking fairy dust :)

You have to understand that wormholes (as nice a plot device in sf as they can be) are an "out there" hypothesis and before they are seriously considered there are much more mundane corrections that can be thought of relativistic quantum field theory to allow for superluminal neutrinos. And that the probelm in theoretical physics is not coming up with fascinating and weird ideas, but actually demonstrating that they fit reality well enough.