As a physics student myself, my first reaction was: Hell NO. Freaking impossible.
In fact I was soon joined by many professional physicists who'd also expressed their reservations on the matter. It simply doesn't make sense.
Carl Sagan once said that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If your experiment seems to break the laws of physics, especially one that is so fundamental and has been proven experimentally over and over again, then chances are you know you've made a mistake than a discovery.
Moreover, plenty of other scientists are using the Supernova that happened in 1987 as an example to refute this faster-than-light claim.
When a star dies it releases multiple blasts of particles, including neutrinos. So when SN 1987A exploded neutrinos and photons went out in all direction and some of them headed to our Earth.
The paper quotes a fractional difference between neutrino speed and that of light of
(2.48 ± 0.28 (stat.) ± 0.30 (sys.)) x 10-5
The neutrinos from SN1987A traveled so far (168,000 light-years) that had they been moving 0.0000248 meter/second faster than light, they would’ve arrived here almost four years before the light did.
However, the light got here only three hours later than the neutrinos. And the lag could be explained by accounting the time it takes for the explosion to eat its way out of the star’s core to its surface. So it's not about neutrinos moving faster than light; it's about why light didn't arrive early.
And these sortta headlines give rise to this kinda brainless comment on Facebook.
This just gives me one more reason to dislike mainstream media.