Hey guys,
i just want to make a few general remarks on your discussion. Take it as the humble opinion of a "professional" physicist (although i'm not so much into particle physics)
Don't believe what you read in a paper (right away).
Don't argue with models that are clearly not suited to describe your situation. (i.e quantum tunneling - and FTL blablabla)
Keep in mind the difference of a model (or theory) and the reality.
A model is a mathematical construct designed to descibe parts of reality (the world, the universe, and so on). A good example are Newtons laws. We want to use models to predict outcomes of things we do (you may call it experiments or applications or whatever). So if i take an apple and let it fall down i can calculate in advance how long it would take until it hits the ground with Newtons laws. And if Newtons laws are suited for the situation i want to predict they will give me the "right" results. In other cases they will not. For example you cannot predict the movement of the mercury with Newtons laws.
General Relativity, quantum mechanics and more complicated models are no different in this respect. They are made to desribe certain things and they will fail to descibe others.
Good theories like the general relativity will of cause prove more useful than maybe originally intended, and describe multiple phenomena reasonable. However every theory is bound to break down eventually. (this is my personal opinion)
And if you interested guys look out there, you can see the signs of Einstein's limits. One the one hand relativity of course breaks down for small distances, where quantum effects take place, but even on the astronomical scales there is a debate going on. You can see something is wrong when scientists start inventing things like Dark Matter, Dark Energy and the like.
I mean seriously, although it sounds very exiting and sci-fi authors can make nice novels - if you look at the postulate of dark matter it just doesnt sound right, more like an excuse to save the general relativity.
You measure the rotation speed of the spiral arms of a galaxy. Check!
You calculate what the rotation speed should be according to general relativity and what you know about the mass of the stars in the galaxy. Check!
Spiral arms rotate too fast! Damn! What now? Two possibilities: calculated mass of galaxy too small or general relativity wrong. General relativity cannot be wrong because its the bible and Einstein is the god of all physicist.
So we just need tp add some mass to the galaxy which we dont know where it comes from. How much do we need to add? Oh, only about 4 times what we think the galaxy has? Cool, done!
And that is now known as dark matter.
/back to topic
Experiments are the final judge of a theory.
It seems OPERA struggled with the difficulties that can just ruin your day as experimentalist and in their case also your reputation. So far no experimental validation of faster than light something.
Theoreticians can write you down any model, including or excluding faster than light neutrinos, imaginary masses and the like. And math proves nothing here, when the model could just be fundamentally wrong.
That said, the fundamental limit of the speed of light is also only incorporated in the general relativity. And because this is only a theory it could also be wrong.
TL, DR: Theories and models are just human made up nonsense. No point to break a sweat arguing about it. No experimental validation of FTL so far.
