Thanks to Public Domain Clip Art for the tip!
The short answer: probably yes and no.
We astronomers get lots of email from all sorts of people about all sorts of topics. Most of those emails are quite legitimate questions or comments. But a small subset of the email we receive comes from people who think they have come up with a new theory; these ideas usually involve disproving Einstein's theories of relativity. And these ideas are invariably not grounded in scientific basis, but are based on taking a little bit of (often incorrect) knowledge and thinking way to hard about the consequences, all the while not worrying about major issues like experimental evidence or mathematical proofs. (See here for a satirical summary of typical mailings.) Most of us learn quickly not to even acknowledge any such correspondence, because many of the authors quickly become belligerent and threatening rather than taking the opportunity to learn a little bit about science.
As I said, Einstein is a frequent target of these misguided ideas, probably because if someone proves Einstein was wrong, then that person will be famous and potentially lauded as a genius the way Einstein is now.
So, it is always with some amount of worry when I see articles in the popular media questioning Einstein. And this has happened twice in the past couple of weeks. An article in Scientific American talks about the implications of "quantum entanglement" (one of the spookier aspects of quantum mechanics) on Einstein's special relativity, and a news release involving data from NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope talks about how there may be evidence from a gamma ray burst that calls parts of relativity into question.
First, let me say that Einstein has not been disproven. Both articles present new arguments and some new evidence that need to be considered. But the conclusions of both articles are that a lot of work needs to be done to verify the suppositions and results. The gamma-ray observation, in particular, has a lot of potential holes that need to be investigated before this claim can even be considered as evidence in a case against relativity. Still, the observations are tantalizing.
But we need to be cautious with our wording. I think most physicists and astronomers realize that Einstein's theories of relativity are incomplete. This doesn't mean that they are wrong. After all, general relativity has predicted some pretty bizarre effects before they were discovered (like black holes, the expansion of the Universe, and gravitational lensing). Our GPS systems are required to make use of general relativity in order to function, and they do indeed function quite well. Any theory that can do all of this is not completely wrong.
Where Einstein's theories run into problems are on the subatomic level. Quantum mechanics, the physics involved on atomic scales, is incompatible with relativity on the smallest scales. For example, quantum mechanics says there is a fundamental length known as the Planck length, below which little or nothing can be known (this length is tiny, about 1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000 the size of an atomic nucleus). Relativity has no such limit. While this sounds like no big deal, it is a fundamental difference between the theories that hasn't been overcome.
Or take the "quantum entanglement" that the Scientific American article talks about. Remember that relativity claims that no information can be sent faster than the speed of light. But it is possible to use quantum mechanics to put two subatomic particles in a state called "entanglement," sort of like a constant interaction. You can send one particle one direction and the other particle another direction. Say you have laboratories on two planets that are 2 light years apart, and you have a third laboratory exactly in between. That third lab makes an entangled particle and sends one to each lab. On one lab there is a machine that can force the particle to jiggle either up and down or left and right (for those who don't like the word "jiggle", I mean have a certain polarization). So, when the particle reaches the first lab, they force it to jiggle in one direction. Meanwhile, in the other lab 2 light years away, the second particle arrives at the same time as the first particle in the first lab. Because the two particles were entangled, this second particle is forced to jiggle in the same direction. The second lab can measure the direction of jiggling and know exactly what the scientists in a lab two light-years away are doing right at that instant; no two-year delay like Einstein would insist there had to be. And we've done this experiment here on Earth, and it works like I said.
To me, this is just saying that either Einstein's relativity or quantum mechanics (or, most likely, both) are not the last word in physics theories. There's something deeper going on. That doesn't mean that Einstein and/or quantum mechanics are wrong, in my opinion, just that they are partial, incomplete explanations of reality.
This is not unprecedented. Consider Isaac Newton, who in the 1600s was able to figure out laws of motion and gravitation. We still teach these laws today, and we even use them to send spaceships throughout our solar system. But Newton's laws are incomplete; they don't take relativity into account. Still, we don't consider Newton to be an idiot for not foreseeing a need for relativity, and in fact one of the requirements for relativity was that it reproduce Newton's Laws under "normal" situations.
Any ultimate theory uniting gravity with particle physics will have to reproduce quantum mechanics, special relativity, general relativity, and even Newton's Laws, at least in the conditions under which we've tested all of these theories. And, when we develop such a theory, I doubt that every physicists' plaster busts of Einstein will end up in the garbage.
Even if ultimately incomplete, Einstein's relativity made some amazingly correct predictions. Even when we study atomic-scale physics, we have to make corrections for special relativity in our models of atoms like iron. General relativity's concept of the equivalence of matter and energy (E=mc2) is at the root of our nuclear fission and fusion reactors (and bombs).
So, was Einstein wrong? Perhaps you could call it that. But given how relativity has pervaded and has shaped physics and technology over the last century, it has to be one of the best wrong answers a scientist could ever hope to make.