Particles are four dimensional objects ie they exist in the present and in the past. When the particles are reconfigured some of the energy tracks our universe but just a little in the past. The neutrinos are therefor hardly of our universe and only interact when they hit the very small tails that hang in the fourth dimension below particles with mass. 

The joke is that the fourth dimension of space is not time, but space, as in the speed of light multiplied by time. 

Abstract
42

It seems a fairly more careful approach, unlike the uses i’ve seen of the god theory, were it’s proponents have failed to predict the end of the world… how many times this year, four?

http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~kovar/hall.html

Abstract:

Yes.

 http://bssa.geoscienceworld.org/content/64/5/1363.abstract

(The paper basically says that the timing of earthquakes can be modeled as a Poisson process, that is, the probability of an earthquake occurring at any given time is independent of the time of the last earthquake.  i.e. earthquakes cannot be predicted)

e.g. suppose the neutrinos have an average speed that is the same as the speed of light.
Due to the uncertainty principle, there is a fluctuation around that average speed. 
If we could see every neutrino, we might find that some are slower than light and some are faster, in a way that’s consistent with Heisenbergs uncertainty principle.

We only detect one in a billion billion neutrinos, so perhaps we are more sensitive to the neutrinos that happened to fluctuate to be marginally faster than light, and we’re less sensitive the ones that happened to fluctuate and travel marginally slower – since the neutrino detector throws away most of the signal, it could be detecting a biased subset and therefore reporting a value faster than light – if it did that it would be a quantum weak measurement – see http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0505075

- but Probably Not.

What’s a “quantum weak measurement”? (wag answer: About 7 days)

(Of course, I can’t really claim any credit; I got it from Ben Goldacre.)

1) 24 antineutrinos from supernova 1987A were detected in a 13 second window, three hours before the optical brightening of the exploding star http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A
2) there was a pre-existing calculation that indicated three hours is about the time it takes for a shockwave to go from the centre of the star to the surface and cause it to brighten, so we should expect a three hour gap if the neutrinos travelled to earth at the same speed as the light
3) If the neutrino velocity discrepancy at Opera was applied to the 1987A neutrinos, then they would have arrived at earth three years before the light did, and no one would have seen them.
4) Superluminal neutrinos would experience a drag mechanism analogous to Cerenkov radiation http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6562 that would reduce their energy even over the 600km distance they are travelling in the Opera experiment
5) There is an indication that the the velocity of the GPS satellites over the ground  and the rotation of the earth under the satellites produces a small Lorentz contraction of the distance between the source and detector that Opera hasn’t included – the time dilation and length contraction caused by this relative motion mean that the neutrinos see a shorter distance in flight than the scientists measure on the ground, which could account for the apparent ‘superluminal’ velocity http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2685v4

In short the neutrinos are probably going close to `c’ and Opera is making a mistake in their distance measurement somehow, because their result looks to be inconsistent with other neutrino observations.

Dark Matter did it.

http://scienceblogs.com/omnibrain/writersblock_publication_humor.jpg

Not just a wormhole, but a alien spaceship, buried for millions of years.  It’s powered by two entangled quantum singularities separated by about 18 meters.  The neutrinos go in one, and pop out the other instantly, taking ~60ns off the trip time.