What's new inpAdic PhysicsNote: Newest contributions are at the top! 
Year 2015 
Indications for the new physics predicted by TGDThe recently reported 750 GeV bump at LHC seems to be more important than I though originally. This bump is only one instance of potential anomalies of the standard the model, which TGD could explain. TGD indeed predicts a lot of new physics at LHC energy scale. For this reason I decided to write a more organized version of the earlier posting.
What about higher generations of gauge bosons?
See the article Indications for the new physics predicted by TGD and chapter New Particle Physics Predicted by TGD: Part I. 
Could leptoquarks be squarks in TGD sense?The basic problem of TGD inspired SUSY has been the lack of experimental information allowing to guess what might be the padic length scale associated with sparticles. The massivation as such is not a problem in TGD: the same mass formula would be obeyed by particles and sparticles and SUSY breaking would mean only different padic mass scales for stable particle states. One can even consider the possibility that particles and sparticles have identical masses but sparticles have nonstandard value of h_{eff} behaving therefore like dark matter. p> The solution of the problem could emerge from experiments in totally unexpected manner. Indications for the existence of leptoquarks have been accumulating gradually from LHC. Leptoquarks should have same quantum numbers as pairs of quark and righthanded neutrino and would thus correspond to squarks in N=2 SUSY of TGD.Both Jester and Lubos have written about leptoquarks. Jester lists 3 Bmeson potential anomalies, which leptoquarks could resolve :
TGD allows to consider two explanations for the observed breaking of leptonic universality in induced by quark self energy diagrams involving emission of virtual W^{} boson decaying normally to lepton pair. The breaking of lepton universality for charged lepton pair production would be following. Penguin diagram involving self energy loop for b quark is involved. b quark transforms to t quark by emitting virtual W decaying to charged lepton and antineutrino. Antineutrino decays to leptoquark and s quark (say) and leptoquark fuses with top quark to charged antilepton. Charged lepton pairs is obtained and the presence of CKM matrix elements implies breaking of universality. Breaking of universality becomes possible also in the production of leptonneutrino pairs. This option is discussed in an article and also in blog posting . TGD allows also an alternative mechanism based on the (almost)predicted existence of higher gauge boson generations, whose charged matrices are orthogonal to those of ordinary gauge bosons with charge matrix which in the 3D state space associated with three families is unit matrix for the ordinary gauge bosons. For higher generations the charge matrices must break universality by orthogonality condition. Hence emission of virtual gauge boson of higher generation would explain the breaking of universality. For more details see the article and blog posting . But what about TGD based SUSY, which should have N=2 and should be generated by adding righthanded neutrino or antineutrino to particle state assignable to a pair of wormhole contacts and basically to single wormhole throat as fermion line? Is there any hope that the padic mass scale corresponds to either k=89 (Mersenne) or more plausibly k=79 (Gaussian Mersenne)? An interesting possibility is that light leptoquarks (using CP_{2} mass scale as unit) actually consist of quark and righthanded neutrino apart from possible mixing with lefthanded antineutrino, whose addition to the oneparticle state generates broken N=2 supersymmetry in TGD. The model for the breaking of universality is consistent with this interpretation since leptoquark is assumed to be scalar (squark!) and to consist of righthanded neutrino and quark. This would resolve the longstanding issue about the padic mass scale of sparticles in TGD. SUSY would be there  not N=1 SUSY of standard unifiers but N=2 SUSY of TGD reducing to CP_{2} geometry. I have made also other proposals  in particular the idea that sparticles could have same padic mass scales as particles but appear only as dark in TGD sense that is having nonstandard value of Planck constant. With a lot of good luck both mechanisms are involved and leptoquarks are squarks in TGD sense. If also M_{89} and M_{79} hadron make themselves visible at LCH (there are several pieces of evidence for this), a breakthrough of TGD would be unavoidable. Or is it too optimistic to hope that the power of truth could overcome academic stupidity, which is after all the strongest force of Nature? See the article Leptoquarks as first piece of evidence for TGD based view about SUSY? and chapters SUSY in TGD Universe and New Particle Physics Predicted by TGD: Part I. 
Indications for the breaking of lepton universality from higher generations of weak bosonsLepton and quark universality of weak interactions is basic tenet of the standard model. Now the first indications for the breaking of this symmetry have been found.
In TGD framework my first  and wrong  guess for an explanation was CKM mixing for leptons. TGD predicts that also leptons should suffer CKM mixing induced by the different mixings of topologies of the partonic 2surfaces assignable to charged and neutral leptons. The experimental result would give valuable information about the values of leptonic CKM matrix. What new this brings is that the decays of W bosons to lepton pairs involve the mixing matrix and CKM matrix whose deviation from unit matrix brings effects anomalous in standard model framework. The origin of the mixing would be topological  usually it is postulated in completely ad hoc manner for fermion fields. Particles correspond to partonic 2surfaces actually several of them but in case of fermions the standard model quantum numbers can be assigned to one of the partonic surfaces so that its topology becomes especially relevant. The topology of this partonic 2 surface at the end of causal diamond (CD) is characterized by its genus  the number of handles attached to sphere  and by its conformal equivalene class characterized by conformal moduli. Electron and its muon correspond to spherical topology before mixing, muon and its neutrino to torus before mixing etc. Leptons are modelled assuming conformal invariance meaning that the leptons have wave functions  elementary particle vacuum functionals  in the moduli space of conformal equivalence classes known as Teichmueller space. Contrary to the naive expection mixing alone does not explain the experimental finding. Taking into account mass corrections, the rates should be same to different charged leptons since neutrinos are not identified. That mixing does not have any implications follows from the unitary of the CKM matrix. The next trial is based on the prediction of 3 generations of weak bosons suggested by TGD.
This could explain the three anomalies associated with the neutral B mesons, which are analogs of neutral K mesons having long and shortlived variants.
It seems that TGD is really there and nothing can prevent it showing up. I predict that next decades in physics will be a New Golden Age of both experimental and theoretical physics. I am eagerly and impatiently waiting that theoretical colleagues finally wake up from their 40 year long sleep and CERN will again be full of working physicists also during weekends (see this);). See the chapter New Particle Physics Predicted by TGD: Part I. 
Indication for a scaled variant of Z bosonBoth Tommaso Dorigo and Lubos Motl tell about a spectacular 2.9 TeV dielectron event not observed in previous LHC runs. Single event of this kind is of course most probably just a fluctuation but human mind is such that it tries to see something deeper in it  even if practically all trials of this kind are chasing of mirages. Since the decay is leptonic, the typical question is whether the dreamed for state could be an exotic Z boson. This is also the reaction in TGD framework. The first question to ask is whether weak bosons assignable to Mersenne prime M_{89} have scaled up copies assignable to Gaussian Mersenne M_{79}. The scaling factor for mass would be 2^{(8989)/2}= 32. When applied to Z mass equal to about .09 TeV one obtains 2.88 TeV, not far from 2.9 TeV. Eureka!? Looks like a direct scaled up version of Z!? W should have similar variant around 2.6 TeV. TGD indeed predicts exotic weak bosons and also gluons. TGD based explanation of family replication phenomenon in terms of genusgeneration correspondence forces to ask whether gauge bosons identifiable as pairs of fermion and antifermion at opposite throats of wormhole contact could have bosonic counterpart for family replication. Dynamical SU(3) assignable to three lowest fermion generations/genera labelled by the genus of partonic 2surface (wormhole throat) means that fermions are combinatorially SU(3) triplets. Could 2.9 TeV state  if it would exist  correspond to this kind of state in the tensor product of triplet and antitriplet? The mass of the state should depend besides padic mass scale also on the structure of SU(3) state so that the mass would be different. This difference should be very small. Dynamical SU(3) could be broken so that wormhole contacts with different genera for the throats would be more massive than those with the same genera. This would give SU(3) singlet and two neutral states, which are analogs of η′ and η and π^{0} in GellMann's quark model. The masses of the analogs of η and π^{0} and the the analog of η′, which I have identified as standard weak boson would have different masses. But how large is the mass difference? These 3 states are expected top have identical mass for the same padic mass scale, if the mass comes mostly from the analog of hadronic string tension assignable to magnetic flux tube. connecting the two wormhole contacts associates with any elementary particle in TGD framework (this is forced by the condition that the flux tube carrying monopole flux is closed and makes a very flattened square shaped structure with the long sides of the square at different spacetime sheets). pAdic thermodynamics would give a very small contribution genus dependent contribution to mass if padic temperature is T=1/2 as one must assume for gauge bosons (T=1 for fermions). Hence 2.95 TeV state could indeed correspond to this kind of state. Can one imagine any pattern for the Mersennes and Gaussian Mersennes involved? Charged leptons correspond to electron (M_{127}), muon (M_{G,113}) and tau (M_{107}): Mersenne Gaussian MersenneMersenne. Does one have similar pattern for gauge bosons too: M_{89} M_{G,79}  M_{61}? See the chapter New Particle Physics Predicted by TGD: Part I. 
Does color deconfinement really occur?Bee had a nice blog posting related to the origin of hadron masses and the phase transition from color confinement to quarkgluon plasma involving also restoration of chiral symmetry in the sigma model description. In the ideal situation the outcome should be a black body spectrum with no correlations between radiated particles. The situation is however not this. Some kind of transition occurs and produces a phase, which has much lower viscosity than expected for quarkgluon plasma. Transition occurs also in much smoother manner than expected. And there are strong correlations between opposite charged particles  charge separation occurs. The simplest characterization for these events would be in terms of decaying strings emitting particles of opposite charge from their ends. Conventional models do not predict anything like this. Some background The masses of current quarks are very small  something like 520 MeV for u and d. These masses explain only a minor fraction of the mass of proton. The old fashioned quark model assumed that quark masses are much bigger: the mass scale was roughly one third of nucleon mass. These quarks were called constituent quarks and  if they are real  one can wonder how they relate to current quarks. Sigma model provide a phenomenological decription for the massivation of hadrons in confined phase. The model is highly analogous to Higgs model. The fields are meson fields and baryon fields. Now neutral pion and sigma meson develop vacuum expectation values and this implies breaking of chiral symmetry so that nucleon become massive. The existence of sigma meson is still questionable. In a transition to quarkgluon plasma one expects that mesons and protons disappear totally. Sigma model however suggests that pion and proton do not disappear but become massless. Hence the two descriptions might be inconsistent. The authors of the article assumes that pion continues to exist as a massless particle in the transition to quark gluon plasma. The presence of massless pions would yield a small effect at the low energies at which massless pions have stronger interaction with magnetic field as massive ones. The existence of magnetic wave coherent in rather large length scale is an additional assumption of the model: it corresponds to the assumption about large h_{eff} in TGD framework, where color magnetic fields associated with M_{89} meson flux tubes replace the magnetic wave. In TGD framework sigma model description is at best a phenomenological description as also Higgs mechanism. pAdic thermodynamics replaces Higgs mechanism and the massivation of hadrons involves color magnetic flux tubes connecting valence quarks to color singles. Flux tubes have quark and antiquark at their ends and are mesonlike in this sense. Color magnetic energy contributes most of the mass of hadron. Constituent quark would correspond to valence quark identified as current quark plus the associated flux tube and its mass would be in good approximation the mass of color magnetic flux tube. There is also an analogy with sigma model provided by twistorialization in TGD sense. One can assign to hadron (actually any particle) a lightlike 8momentum vector in tangent space M^{8}=M^{4}× E^{4} of M^{4}× CP_{2} defining 8momentum space. Massless implies that ordinary mass squared corresponds to constant E^{4} mass which translates to a localization to a 3sphere in E^{4}. This localization is analogous to symmetry breaking generating a constant value of π^{0} field proportional to its mass in sigma model. An attempt to understand charge asymmetries in terms of charged magnetic wave and charge separation One of the models trying to explain the charge asymmetries is in terms of what is called charged magnetic wave effect and charge separation effect related to it. The experiment discussed by Bee attempts to test this model.
See the chapter New Particle Physics Predicted by TGD: Part I or article Does color deconfinement really occur?. 
Could M_{G,79} hadron physics be seen at LHC?Gaussian Mersennes M_{G,n}=(1+i)^{n}1 (complex primes for complex integers) are much more abundant than ordinary Mersennes and corresponding padic time scales seem to define fundamental length scales of cosmology, astrophysics, biology, nuclear physics, and elementary physics. There are as many as 10 Gaussian Mersennes besides 9 Mersennes above LHC energy scale suggesting a lot of new physics in sharp contrast with the GUT dogma that nothing interesting happens above weak boson scale perhaps copies of hadron physics or weak interaction physics. In the following I consider only those Gaussian Mersennes possibly interesting from the point of view of very high energy particle physics. n∈{2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 19, 29, 47, 73} correspond to energies not accessible at LHC. n= 79 might define new copy of hadron physics above TeV range  something which I have not considered seriously before. The scaled variants of pion and proton masses (M_{107} hadron physics) are about 2.2 TeV and 16 TeV. Is it visible at LHC is a question mark to me. Some weeks after writing the last sentence I saw the posting of Lubos suggesting that M_{G,79} pion might have been already seen! Lubos tells about a bump around 2(!)TeV energy observed already earlier at ATLAS and now also at CMS. See the article in Something goes bump in Symmetry Magazine. The local signficance is about 3.5 sigma and local significance about 2.5 sigma. Bump decays to weak bosons. Many interpretations are possible. An interpretation as new Higgs like particle has been suggested. Second interpretation  favored by Lubos  is as righthanded W boson predicted by leftright symmetric variants of the standard model. If this is correct interpretation, one can forget about TGD since the main victory of TGD is that the very strange looking symmmetries of standrad model have an elegant explanation in terms of CP_{2} geometry, which is also twistorially completely unique and geometrizes both electroweak and color quantum numbers. Note that the masses masses of M_{G,79} weak physics would be obtained by scaling the masses of ordinary M_{89} weak bosons by factor 2^{(8979)/2)}= 512. This would give the masses about 2.6 TeV and 2.9 TeV. There is however an objection. If one applies padic scaling 2^{(10789)/2}=2^{9} of pion mass in the case of M_{89} hadron physics, M_{89} pion should have mass about 69 GeV (this brings in mind the old and forgotten anomaly known as Aleph anomaly at 55 GeV). I proposed that the mass is actually an octave higher and thus around 140 GeV: padic length scale hypothesis allows to consider octaves. Could it really be that a pion like state with this mass could have slipped through the sieve of particle physicists? Note that the proton of M_{89} hadron physics would have mass about .5 TeV. I have proposed that M_{89} hadron physics has made itself visible already in heavy ion collisions at RHIC and in protonheavy ion collisions at LHC as strong deviation from QCD plasma behavior meaning that charged particles tended to be accompanied by particles of opposite charged in opposite direction as if they would be an outcome of a decay of string like objects, perhaps M_{89} pions. There has been attempts  not very successful  to explain nonQCD type behavior in terms of AdS/CFT. Scaled up variant of QCD would explain them elegantly. Strings would be in D=10. The findings from LHC during this year probably clarify this issue. Lubos is five days later more enthusiastic about superstring inspired explanation of the bump than the explanation relying on leftright symmetric variant of the standard model. The title of the posting of Lubos is The 2 TeV LHC excess could prove string theory. The superstringy model involves as many as six superstring phenomenologists as chefs and the soup contains intersecting branes and anomalies as ingredients. The article gives further valuable information about the bump also for those who are not terribly interested on intersecting branes and addition of new anomalous factors to the standard model gauge group. The following arguments show that the information is qualitatively consistent with the TGD based model.

Criticality of Higgs: is Planck length dogmatics physically feasible?While studying the materials related to Convergence conference running during this week at Perimeter institute I ended up with a problem related to the fact that the mass M_{h}= 125.5+/ .24 GeV implies that Higgs as described by standard model (now new physics at higher energies) is at the border of metastability and stability  one might say near criticality (see this and this), and I decided to look from TGD perspective what is really involved. Absolute stability would mean that the Higgs potential becomes zero at Planck length scale assumed to be the scale at which QFT description fails: this would require M_{h}>129.4 GeV somewhat larger that the experimentally determined Higgs mass in standard model framework. Metastability means that a new deep minimum is developed at large energies and the standard model Higgs vacuum does not anymore correspond to a minimum energy configuration and is near to a phase transition to the vacuum with lower vacuum energy. Strangely enough, Higgs is indeed in the metastable region in absence of any new physics. Since the vacuum expectation of Higgs is large at high energies the potential is in a reasonable approximation of form V= λ h^{4}, where h is the vacuum expectation in the high energy scale considered and λ is dimensionless running coupling parameter. Absolute stability would mean λ=0 at Planck scale. This condition cannot however hold true as follows from the input provided by top quark mass and Higgs mass to which λ at LHC energies is highly sensitive. Rather, the value of λ at Planck scale is small and negative: λ(M_{Pl})=0.0129 is the estimate to be compared with λ(M_{t})=0.12577 at top quark mass. This implies that the potential defining energy density associated with the vacuum expectation value of Higgs becomes negative at high enough energies.The energy at which λ becomes negative is in the range 10^{10}10^{12} GeV, which is considerably lower than Planck mass about 10^{19} GeV. This estimate of course assumes that there is no new physics involved. The plane defined by top and Higgs masses can be decomposed to regions (see figure 5 of this), where perturbative approach fails (λ too large), there is only single minimum of Higgs potential (stability), there is no minimum of Higgs potential (λ<0, instability) and new minima with smaller energy is present (metastability). This metastability can lead to a transition to a lower energy state and could be relevant in early cosmology and also in future cosmology. The value of λ turns out to be rather small at Planck mass. λ however vanishes and changes sign in a much lower energy range 10^{10}10^{12} GeV. Is this a signal that something interesting takes place considerably below Planck scale? Could Planck length dogmatics is wrong? Is criticality only an artefact of standard model physics and as such a signal for a new physics? How could this relate to TGD? Planck length is one of the unchallenged notions of modern physics but in TGD padic mass calculations force to challenge this dogma. Planck length is replaced with CP_{2} length scale which is roughly 10^{4} longer than Planck length and determined by the condition that electron corresponds to the largest Mersenne prime (M_{127}), which does not define completely superastrophysical padic length scale, and by the condition that electron mass comes out correctly. Also many other elementary particles correspond to Mersenne primes. In biological relevant scales there are several (4) Gaussian Mersennes. In CP_{2} length scale the QFT approximation to quantum TGD must fail since the the replacement of the manysheeted spacetime with GRT spacetime with Minkowskian signature of the metric fails, and spacetime regions with Euclidian signature of the induced metric defining the lines of generalized Feynman diagrams cannot be anymore approximated as lines of ordinary Feynman diagrams or twistor diagrams. From electron mass formula and electron mass of .5 MeV one deduces that CP_{2} mass scale is 2.53× 10^{15} GeV  roughly three orders of magnitudes above 10^{12} GeV obtained if there is no new physics emerges above TeV scale. TGD "almostpredicts" several copies of hadron physics corresponding to Mersenne primes M_{n}, n=89, 61, 31,.. and these copies of hadron physics are expected to affect the evolution of λ and maybe raise the energy 10^{12} GeV to about 10^{15} GeV. For M_{31} the electronic padic mass scale happens to be 2.2× 10^{10} GeV. The decoupling of Higgs by the vanishing of λ could be natural at CP_{2} scale since the very notion of Higgs vacuum expectation makes sense only at QFT limit becoming nonsensical in CP_{2} scale. In fact, the description of physics in terms of elementary particles belonging to three generations might fail above this scale. Standard model quantum numbers make still sense but the notion of family replication becomes questionable since in TGD framework the families correspond to different boundary topologies of wormhole throats and the relevant physics is above this mass scale inside the wormhole contacts: there would be only single fermion generation below CP_{2} scale. This raises questions. Could one interpret the strange criticality of the Higgs as a signal about the fact that CP_{2} mass scale is the fundamental mass scale and Newton's constant might be only a macroscopic parameter. This would add one more nail to the coffin of superstring theory and of all theories relying on Planck length scale dogmatics. One can also wonder whether the criticality might somehow relate to the quantum criticality of TGD Universe. My highly noneducated guess is that it is only an artefact of standard model description. Note however that below CP_{2} scale the transition from the phase dominated by cosmic strings to a phase in which spacetime sheets emerge and leading to the radiation dominated cosmology would take place: this period would be the TGD counterpart for the inflationary period and also involve a rapid expansion. See the chapter Higgs or Something Else. 
Have leptoquarks been observed in the decays of B mesons?Jester told in his blog "Resonaances" about an evidence for anomalies in the decays of B meson to K meson and lepton pair. There exist several anomalies.
Scalar leptoquark has been proposed as an explanation of the anomaly. The lowest order diagram for lepton pair production in standard model is penguin diagram obtained from the self energy diagram for b quark involving tW^{} intermediate in which W emits γ/Z decaying to lepton pair. Lepton universality is obvious. The penguin diagram involves 4 vertices and 4 propagators and the product of CKM matrix elements V_{tb}V^{*}_{st}. The diagram involving leptoquark is obtained from this diagram by a modification. The diagram would induce an effective fourfermion coupling bbar_{L}γ ^{μ}s_{L} μ^{+}_{L}γ_{μ} μ^{}_{L} representing neutral current breaking universality. Authors propose a heavy scalar boson exchanges with quantum numbers of leptoquark and mass of order 10 TeV to explain why no anomalous weak interactions between leptons and quarks by leptoquark exchange have not been observed. Scalar nature would suggest Higgs type coupling proportional to mass of the lepton and this could explain why the effect of exchange is smaller in the case of electron pair. The effective lefthanded couplings would however suggest vector leptoquarks with couplings analogous to W boson coupling. Note that the effect should reduce the rate: the measured rate for B_{s} → μ^{}μ^{+} is .79+/ .20: reduction would be due to destructive interference of amplitudes. General ideas Some general ideas about TGD are needed in the model and are listed in order to avoid the impression that the model is just ad hoc construct.
It is natural to approach also the anomaly under discussion by assuming the basic framework just described. The anomaly in the decay amplitude of B→ Kμ^{}μ^{+} could be due to an additional contribution based on a simple modification for the standard model amplitude.
See the chapter New Particle Physics Predicted by TGD or the article Have leptoquarks been observed in the decays of B mesons?. 
What could be the TGD counterpart of SUSYSupersymmetry is very beautiful generalization of the ordinary symmetry concept by generalizing Liealgebra by allowing grading such that ordinary Lie algebra generators are accompanied by supergenerators transforming in some representation of the Lie algebra for which Liealgebra commutators are replaced with anticommutators. In the case of Poincare group the supergenerators would transform like spinors. Clifford algebras are actually superalgebras. Gamma matrices anticommute to metric tensor and transform like vectors under the vielbein group (SO(n) in Euclidian signature). In supersymmetric gauge theories one introduced super translations anticommuting to ordinary translations. Supersymmetry algebras defined in this manner are characterized by the number of supergenerators and in the simplest situation their number is one: one speaks about N=1 SUSY and minimal supersymmetric extension of standard model (MSSM) in this case. These models are most studied because they are the simplest ones. They have however the strange property that the spinors generating SUSY are Majorana spinors real in welldefined sense unlike Dirac spinors. This implies that fermion number is conserved only modulo two: this has not been observed experimentally. A second problem is that the proposed mechanisms for the breaking of SUSY do not look feasible. LHC results suggest MSSM does not become visible at LHC energies. This does not exclude more complex scenarios hiding simplest N=1 to higher energies but the number of real believers is decreasing. Something is definitely wrong and one must be ready to consider more complex options or totally new view abot SUSY. What is the situation in TGD? Here I must admit that I am still fighting to gain understanding of SUSY in TGD framework. That I can still imagine several scenarios shows that I have not yet completely understood the problem and am working hardly to avoid falling to the sin of sloppying myself. In the following I summarize the situation as it seems just now.
Could covariantly constant right handed neutrinos generate SUSY? Could covariantly constant righthanded spinors generate exact N=2 SUSY? There are two spin directions for them meaning the analog N=2 Poincare SUSY. Could these spin directions correspond to righthanded neutrino and antineutrino. This SUSY would not look like Poincare SUSY for which anticommutator of super generators would be proportional to fourmomentum. The problem is that fourmomentum vanishes for covariantly constant spinors! Does this mean that the sparticles generated by covariantly constant ν_{R} are zero norm states and represent super gauge degrees of freedom? This might well be the case although I have considered also alternative scenarios. What about noncovariantly constant righthanded neutrinos?
Both imbedding space spinor harmonics and the modified Dirac equation have also righthanded neutrino spinor modes not constant in M^{4}. If these are responsible for SUSY then SUSY is broken.
What one can say about the masses of sparticles? The simplest form of massivation would be that all members of the super multiplet obey the same mass formula but that the padic length scales associated with them are different. This could allow very heavy sparticles. What fixes the padic mass scales of sparticles? If this scale is CP_{2} mass scale SUSY would be experimentally unreachable. The estimate below does not support this option. One can even consider the possibility that SUSY breaking makes sparticles unstable against phase transition to their dark variants with h_{eff} =n× h. Sparticles could have same mass but be nonobservable as dark matter not appearing in same vertices as ordinary matter! Geometrically the addition of righthanded neutrino to the state would induce manysheeted covering in this case with right handed neutrino perhaps associated with different spacetime sheet of the covering. This idea need not be so outlandish at it looks first.
The mixing of right and left handed neutrinos would be the basic mechanism in the decays of sfermions. The mixing mechanism is mystery in standard model framework but in TGD it is implied by both induced and modified gamma matrices. The following argument tries to capture what is essential in this process.
See the chapter Does the QFT Limit of TGD Have SpaceTime SuperSymmetry? or the article What went wrong with symmetries?. 
Some comments about τμ anomaly of Higgs decays and anomalies of B meson decaysLubos mentions 2.5 sigma anomaly (that is something to be not taken seriously) in the decay of Higgs to τμ pair or its charge conjugate not allowed by standard model. Lubos mentions a model explaining the anomaly and also other anomalies related to semileptonic decays of neutral B meson in terms of double Higgs sector and gauged L_{μ}L_{τ} symmetry. In a more recent posting Lubos mentions another paper explaining the anomaly in terms of a frightingly complex E_{6} gauge model inspired by heterotic strings. TGD suggests however an amazingly simple explanation of the τμ anomaly in terms of neutrino mixing. As a matter fact, after writing the first hasty summary of the childishly simple idea discussed below but still managing to make mistakes;), I became skeptic: perhaps I have misunderstood what is meant by anomaly. Perhaps the production of τμ pairs is not the anomaly after all. Perhaps the anomaly is the deviation from the prediction based on the model below. It however seems that my hasty interpretation was correct. This brings in my mind a dirty joke about string theorists told only at late hours when superstring theorists have already gone to bed. How many super string theorists it takes to change the light bulb? Two. The first one holds the light bulb and the second one rotates the multiverse. Model for the h→ μτ_{c} anomaly in terms of neutrino mixing To my humble opinion both models mentioned by Lubos are highly artificial and bring in a lot of new parameters since new particles are introduced. Also a direct Yukawa coupling of Higgs to τμ pair is assumed. This would however break the universality since lepton numbers for charged lepton generations would not be conserved. This does not look attractive and one can ask whether the allowance of transformation of neutrinos to each other by mixing known to occur could be enough to explain the findings assuming that there are no primary flavor changing currents and without introducing any new particles or new parameters. In the hadronic sector the mixing for quarks D type quarks indeed explains this kind of decays producing charged quark pair of say type cu_{c}. In TGD framework, where CKM mixing reduces to topological mixing of topologies of partonic 2surfaces, this option is especially attractive.
What about the anomalies related to B meson decays? The model that Lubos refers to tries to explain also the anomalies related to semileptonic decays of neutral B meson. Neutrino mixing is certainly not a natural candidate if one wants to explain the 2.5 sigma anomalies reported for the decays of B meson to K meson plus muon pair. Lubos has a nice posting about surprisingly many anomalies related to the leptonic and pion and kaon decays of neutral B meson. Tommaso Dorigo tells about 4sigma evidence for new physics in rare G boson decays. There is also an anomaly related to the decay of neutral B meson to muon pair reported by Jester. In the latter case the the decay can proceed via W or Higgs pair as intermediate state. The coupling h→ bs_{c} resulting through CKM mixing for quarks by the same mechanism as in the case of leptons must have been taken into account since it is standard model process. TGD predicts M_{89} hadron physics as a padically scaled up variant of ordinary M_{107} hadron physics with hadron mass scale scaled up by factor 512 which corresponds to LHC energies. Could it be that the loops involve also quarks of M_{89} hadron physics. A quantitative modelling would require precise formulation for the phase transition changing the padic prime characterizing quarks and gluons. One can however ask whether one might understand these anomalies qualitatively in a simple manner in TGD framework. Since both leptons and quarks are involved, the anomaly must related to Wquark couplings. If M_{89} physics is there, there must be radiatively generated couplings representing the decay of W to a pair of ordinary M_{107} quark and M_{89} quark. A quark of M_{89} hadron physics appearing as a quark exchange between W^{+} and W^{} in box diagram would affect the rates of B meson to kaon and pion. This would affect also the semileptonic decays since the the photon or Z decaying to a lepton pair could be emitted from M_{89} quark. But doesn't Higgs vacuum expectation vanish in TGD? While polishing this posting I discovered an objection against TGD approach that I have not noticed earlier. This objection allows to clarify TGD based view about particles so that I discuss it here.
See the chapter New Particle Physics Predicted by TGD: Part I or the article Some comments about τμ anomaly of Higgs decays and anomalies of B meson decays. 