Neutrinos, Time Travel and the Speed of Light

Ok, this will be short but probably mind bending. I'll aim to keep it as simple (and correct) as possible.

Quite a few of my friends have expressed some confusion over the experimental result by the Opera group measuring Muon decay into neutrinos which has "apparently" yielded a surprising result - namely the appearance of a particle that is travelling faster than the speed of light in a vacuum (that is the c from e = mc^2)

Setting aside that they have probably made some error (I say probably because it would be awesome if they haven't), let's discuss some of the issues around this:
1. It is a myth that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Nonsense. We even have a word for anything that is faster than c - the Tachyon. Geeks amongst you may have come across this in SciFi. The issue, as I've always understood it is that we shouldn't be able to knowingly detect anything travelling faster than c.
2. The barrier that c represents is actually one of progression not existence. No particle can accelerate through c either from going slower to faster nor from faster to slower. If you like, it's a wall through which we can't pass but neither can anyone on the other side.
3. Relativity is still a sound theory, it's just that this rather esoteric particle, the neutrino, has possibly done something we didn't expect or believe possible. If relativity was rubbish you're sat nav wouldn't work. So if you want to restore your faith in the applications of how we understand the world today - curse it for taking you the wrong way down a one way street, but not for actually working.
4. Not all neutrinos travel at superluminal velocities. We have had a number of supernovas to watch in living memory and we have also been able to detect the particles coming from those dying stars. Their neutrinos did not arrive appreciably faster than the photons...i.e. they were not breaching c.
5. FAQ - If neutrinos do travel faster than light, then is time travel possible?. May be, but never in the way you're thinking. Yes you. The one scrolling up and down. You. Why not? Because the main implication is not that time isn't linear - we've kind of deduced that already, more that it much of the universe strongly doesn't see sequences of events in the same way we do (that is, as connected and related to each other.) This doesn't imply I won't get drunk because I drank alcohol but does perhaps imply that we could run time backwards and undo my inebriation (although there are some funny quantum aspects we should probably not forget about rerunning anything - it's entirely feasible we'd run time backwards and not notice the change...)

The more I know about the universe, the more I realise we know almost nothing about it. Not in a "well 90% of the universe is unknown to us" but in the sense of 90% OF THE UNIVERSE IS UNKNOWN TO US.

Just as with theology, there's only one thing you can be sure of with scientific theory - it's going to change as we experience new things our old ways of thinking can't handle. Just as with the ways we humans organise ourselves, what we do accept will be very useful in the meantime.

One last thing. People often scoff at the importance of just exploring the universe for its own sake. Mean spirited, small minded fools think we shouldn't spend the money unless it's got 'practical' applications. This event, regardless of the probably outcome (an error in their experiment), has provoked wonder, mirth and discussion and that, really, is completely priceless and worth every penny of funding we've ever provided. Not to mention the Sat Nav, LCD tvs, hard disks, iphones, skype, cars, antibiotics, photographs etc etc etc. yawn, etc. etc. etc.