mountain man wrote:
When Heisenberg unsuccessfully tried to formulate a unified
theory of elementary particles he only tried to change the
postulates of quantum mechanics, but did not question the
special theory of relativity.

This example shows that the question to be asked should be:
Could it be that either quantum mechanics or the theory of
relativity, or perhaps both be "wrong," in the same sense
"wrong" as Newton's mechanics was found to be "wrong"
in the face of quantum mechanics?

Full paper available from:
http://physics.unr.edu/faculty/winterberg/

or as the .pdf
http://physics.unr.edu/faculty/winterberg/myth.pdf

Pete,

It is very unlikely that special relativity is wrong in
the macroscopic realm. The greatest evidence for special
relativity is that it can be derived only from Newton's
first law of motion and the homogeneity of time:

http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf

If superluminality has truly been verified, then it's an
easy matter to adjust special relativity to account for it.
All you need is an absolute frame of reference. It is well
known, for instance, that spatially compact spacetimes break
global Lorentz invariance and define absolute frames of
reference:

http://physics.ucr.edu/Active/Abs/ab...13-NOV-97.html
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0503/0503070.pdf
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=79
http://cornell.mirror.aps.org/abstra.../v8/i6/p1662_1
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0101/0101014.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0006/0006039.pdf
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...multaneity.htm

I sincerely thank for bringing Winterberg's paper to my
attention. I enjoyed reading it. He did an excellent job
of depicting the pure fantasy universe that physicists
have manufactured and from which they cannot escape.