Supersymmetric Extension of Preonic Models: General Remarks

B. B. Oner
Department of Material Science and Nanotechnology,
TOBB University of Economics and Technology, Ankara, Turkey∗

S. Sultansoy
TOBB University of Economics and Technology, Ankara, Turkey and
ANAS Institute of Physics, Baku, Azerbaijan†

We present some general remarks on supersymmetric extensions of fermion-scalar and three-

fermion preonic models with an assumption of supersymmetry is realized at preonic level. The
motivation and the requirement of this assumption are briefly given. In general, supersymmetric
arXiv:1708.01811v1 [hep-ph] 5 Aug 2017

extensions of fermion-scalar (three-fermion) models predict 4 (10) “super” partners for each Standard
Model fermion.

∗ b.oner@etu.edu.tr
† ssultansoy@etu.edu.tr
 2

I. INTRODUCTION

Historical development of the search of the “fundamental” matter(s) and interaction(s) shows us that pre-judgements
on the fundamentality of the matter usually turned out to be wrong. The time has shown that most of the previously
tought fundamental matter could be accepted elementary only on a lower energy region. Electron, which was already
known due to cathode ray experiments in 1897 [1], evoked the idea of compositeness of the atom. Ernest Rutherford
revealed its real structure [2] and suggested to increase collision energies for a better understanding of the fundamen-
tality. A few years later, in 1919, proton is discovered [3] and, therefore, the nuclei are also proved to be composites.
Discovery of zero electric charge nutron has been a little late. In 1932, neutron was tought to be a composite particle
that consists of proton and electron [4]. Even though neutrons are composites, the real story was again different. After
1950s, hadronic structure of nuclei was revealed and in the next decade quarks were introduced as building blocks of
hadrons [5–7]. Baryons, like proton and neutron, are proved to consist of three quarks while mesons, like pi-meson, are
quark-antiquark composites. After these discoveries with other enormous number of experiments, finally, Standard
Model (SM) is developed and took its final form in 1970s [8]. SM is experimentally confirmed in low energy region
totally after the discovery of the 125 GeV Higgs boson in 2012 [9].
Most of previously fundamental questions in physics found their answers within the brief history given above.
However, the whole story did not end since SM still has critical deficincies to explain some important phenomena.
We present a detailed list of these questions/problems below [10]:
Why does the most-fundamental model need large number of free observable parameters (26 if neutrinos are Dirac
particles, 30+? for Majorana neutrinos) put by hand?
What is the reason of the number of the SM generations?
What is the reason for the mass hierarchy between these generations?
What is the reason of the quark-lepton symmetry? Are the neutrinos Dirac or Majorana particles?
Why do the CKM angles and weak mixing angles take their values?
Why do the electric charge quantizations of quarks and leptons are related (Qu = +2Qe /3, Qd = −Qe /3) ?
Why is L-R symmetry broken in the SM and why do quarks and leptons share similarity in the weak sector?
What is the reason of matter-antimatter asymmetry?
What is the real origin of CP-violation?
Why are all the known interactions built on a gauge symmetry?
What is origin of “confinement” of colored objects? Are they “truly confined”?
How can be the role of gravity put in its place in unification theories?
How can one solve theoretical problem of quadratic divergence in the Higgs mass?
...
Different phenomenological and theoretical approaches beyond the Standard Model (BSM) were proposed in order
to overcome at least a part of the problems encountered. Composite models, super-symmetry (SUSY), and grand
unified models and extra dimensions can be regarded as the most efficient ones among these proposals. However, no
experimental evidence has been found supporting these ideas yet. Therefore, we know that if a new physics exists,
the new physics scale, Λ , is certainly over a few TeV. We present brief histories and necessities of composite models
and SUSY below.
Composite Models: Leptons and quarks in SM are assumed to be elementary particles which seems questionable
especially considering the mass and mixing patterns of these SM fermions. Quantization of their electric charges and
their similar chiral structures can be added to the list. In this manner, composite models seem to be the strongest
candidates since they are able to clarify these questions naturally. Historical arguments favoring composite models
are presented in Table I.

Table I. Examples of “fundamental” particle inflations encountered in the last century.

Stages 1870s-1930s 1950s-1970s 1970s-2020s
Fundamental Particle Inflation Chemical Elements Hadrons Quarks & Leptons
Systematic Periodic Table Eight-fold Way Family Replication
Confirmed Predictions New Elements New Hadrons l8 and q6 ?
Clarifying Experiments Rutherford SLAC DIS LHC? or rather FCC?
Building Blocks Proton, Neutron, Electron Quarks Preons?
Energy Scale MeV GeV Multi-TeV?
Impact on Technology Exceptional Indirect Exceptional?
 3

Composite models have been developed since forty years ago (see Ref. [11] and references therein). Pati and Salam
denoted the fundamental particles as PRE (-entities) first [12] and later this name evolved as preons [13]. For detailed
reviews of composite models see Refs. [14–16]. Even though most of the models present consistent arguments to the
abovementioned SM problems, they did not arouse interest as much as they deserved; essentially compared to the
SUSY.
SUSY : One of the most promising sides of the SUSY is cancellation of quadratic divergent in the Higgs mass, mH ,
by opposite-sign contributions of superpartners. For a detailed review of SUSY and some other important supporting
ideas, see [17, 18]. However a critical problem arises: number of observable free parameters. Even in minimal super-
symmetric Standard Model (MSSM), this number increases up to more than 200 [10, 19–21] while it is only 26 in SM
itself. Another critical issue is that supersymmetric partners of SM fermions have been expected to have masses below
1 TeV [17] in order to preserve mH = 125 GeV, however, most of this region is already excluded by LHC [22, 23].
To sum up, compositeness and SUSY, seperately, have lack of ability to explain most of the SM problems and these
problems seem to remain unsolved unless proposed BSM models are combined. One should note that the SM is rather
a theory of fundamental interactions than fundamental fermions [24]. Therefore, it is natural to consider an option
in which SM fermions are composites and SUSY is realized at a more fundamental level.
Pati and Salam proposed supersymmetry at preonic or pre-preonic level in 1982 [25] with an assumption of the
lepton number as the fourth color [26]. Only limited number of studies handled preonic SUSY after 1980s and there
is not any fully-realistic preonic model yet. This is especially because of the unknown preonic level interactions.
However, one can make some general phenomenologic predictions for preonic SUSY without consideration of specific
models or dynamics.
In this paper, we present general remarks on supersymmetric extensions of composite models. Supersymmetric
extensions of fermion-scalar and three-fermion preonic models are discussed in Sections II.A and II.B, respectively.
Finally we give some concluding remarks in Section III.

II. SUPERSYMMETRIC EXTENSIONS OF COMPOSITE MODELS

In general, composite models of the SM fermions can be divided into two different main classes regarding their
fundamental constituents: fermion-scalar and three-fermion models. In this Section we assume that supersymmetry
is realized at preonic level. In this case supersymmetry can be implanted into models by to ways. The first approach
is only setting the quantum numbers of the preons of an existing model to make each pair of them superpartners
themselves, whereas the second approach is proposing new superpartners of the preons without any modifications of
existing preons of a model. The first approach is valid only for fermion-scalar models while the latter can be applied
for three-fermion models also. Below we emphasize some phenomenological points on supersymmetric extensions of
these two type of models.

A. Supersymmetric Fermion-Scalar Models

Primitive versions of spin-1/2 and spin-0 composite models handled only SM quarks and specific SM bosons and
did not address compositeness of the SM leptons [27, 28]. However, as mentioned in the Introduction, the similarity
between SM quarks and leptons leads the idea that if there is a more fundamental level than SM, then the same
particles in that level should give rise to all SM fermions. Fritzsch and Mandelbaum proposed a composite model
that consists of two fermionic and two scalar color-triplet preons in 1981 [29] with this point of view. All of the first
generation SM fermions are constructed from minimal invariants q, l = {F S}. In this case, color singlet SM leptons
are predicted to be bound states of one fermionic preon and one scalar anti-preon

l = (F S̄) = 1 ⊕ 8, (1)

with a color-octet partner l8 . Quarks are expected to be composed of one fermionic and one scalar anti-preons in a
similar manner

q = (F̄ S̄) = 3 ⊕ 6̄, (2)

 4

which means that each SM quark has one anti-sextet partner q̄6 .
An extension of the model, with possible electric charge set schemes under an assumption |QF,S | ≤ 1, was given
by Celikel et al. and production of the predicted color multiplet particles were studied from the LHC point of view
[30]. The same study also includes an option that corresponds to Fritzsch-Mandelbaum model and one of the options
implies the fermion-scalar symmetry from electric charge viewpoint which may be an indication of super-symmetry
at preonic level.
If SM fermions are composites of scalar and fermionic preons then each SM fermion (F S) with m ≈ 0 has four
partners in a minimal supersymmetric extension:
scalar (F̃ S) with m ≈ MSUSY ,
scalar and vector (F S̃) with m ≈ MSUSY ,
and a fermion (F̃ S̃ ) with m ≈ 2MSUSY ,
where MSUSY denotes the SUSY scale.

B. Supersymmetric Three-Fermion Models

As an example of three-fermion composite models we consider so called Rishon models [31–33]. Harari and Shupe
independently suggested preons as colorless objects first and suggested that SU(3) color concept arises with combi-
nations of preons [31, 32]. They avoided to explain the hypercolor dynamics and spin-3/2 SM level fermionic states
as mentioned in their original paper. Latter three-fermion studies came up with the idea, in which two types of
Rishons are assumed to be neutral and e/3 electric charged, color triplet and anti-triplet and SU(3) hypercolored
spin-1/2 preons: V and T, respectively [33]. According to this class of composite models, SM fermions consist of three
fermionic preons q, l = {F1 F2 F3 }, and therefore, color singlet SM leptons are predicted to be lighter bound states of
color triplet preons with two color octet and one decuplet partners:

l = (F F F ) = 1 ⊕ 8 ⊕ 8 ⊕ 10, (3)

whereas color triplet SM quarks consist of two preons and one anti-preon and have color multiplet partners as given
below:

q = (F F F̄ ) = 3 ⊕ 3̄ ⊕ 6̄ ⊕ 15. (4)

If each preon Fi has a superpartner F̃i in a minimal supersymmetric extension then each composite fermion (F1 F2 F3 )
with m ≈ 0 should have ten partners:
three scalars and three vectors (F̃1 F2 F3 ), (F1 F̃2 F3 ), (F1 F2 F̃3 ) with m ≈ MSUSY ,
three fermions (F̃1 F̃2 F3 ), (F̃1 F2 F̃3 ), (F1 F̃2 F̃3 ) with m ≈ 2MSUSY ,
and a scalar (F̃1 F̃2 F̃3 ) with m ≈ 3MSUSY .

III. CONCLUSION

In this study we emphasize some general remarks on supersymmetric extensions of fermion-scalar and three-fermion
composite models since we believe that supersymmetry should be realized at a more fundamental level than SM. These
extensions predict the existence of new SM fermion-partners with masses up to three times of SUSY scale. Similar
to the previous composite models, color-multiplet leptons and quarks, which are expected to have masses much
lower than the compositeness scale, are predicted [34]. Observation of these particles could provide first indications
of supersymmetric preonic models. Of course, mixings between quarks (leptons, squarks, sleptons) can drastically
change the simple mass relations given in Section II. Therefore, it is quite possible that the search for SUSY &
compositeness at future colliders will give rather surprising results. Finally, a more extensive study on the same topic
is in preparation.
 5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Authors are grateful to Ümit Kaya for useful discussion. This study is supported by TUBITAK under the grant no
114F337.

[1] J.J Thomson, “Cathode Rays”, Phil. Mag. 44,293 (1897) ; Nature 55, 453 (1897).
[2] E. Rutherford, "LXXIX. The scattering of α and β particles by matter and the structure of the atom", The London,
Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 21.125, 669 (1911).
[3] E. Rutherford, “Collision of α Particles with Light Atoms. IV. An Anomalous Effect in Nitrogen”, Phil. Mag. 37, 581
(1919).
[4] J. Chadwick, “The existence of a neutron”, Proc. Roy. Soc. A136, 692 (1932).
[5] M. Gell-Mann, “A schematic model of baryons and mesons”, Phys. Lett. 8, 214 (1964).
[6] G. Zweig, “An SU(3) model for strong interaction symmetry and its breaking I”, CERN-8182-TH-401 (1964).
[7] G. Zweig, “An SU(3) model for strong interaction symmetry and its breaking II”, CERN-8419-TH-412 (1964).
[8] S. L. Glashow, “Towards a unified theory: Threads in a tapestry”, Reviews of Modern Physics 52, 539 (1980); A. Salam,
“Gauge unification of fundamental forces”, Reviews of Modern Physics 52, 525 (1980); S. Weinberg, “Conceptual foundations
of the unified theory of weak and electromagnetic interactions”, Reviews of Modern Physics 52, 515 (1980).
[9] G. Aad, et al. “Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector
at the LHC”, Phys. Lett. B 716.1, 1 (2012); S. Chatrchyan, et al. "Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with
the CMS experiment at the LHC", Phys. Lett. B 716.1, 30 (2012).
[10] S. Sultansoy, “Four remarks on physics at LHC” (Plenary talk presented at ATLAS Week, 26-31 May 1997, CERN),
preprint no. AU-HEP-97-05. Fermilab SCAN-9711034, 1997.
[11] I.A. D’Souza and C.S. Kalman, Preons: Models of leptons, quarks and gauge bosons as composite objects, World Scientific,
1992 Harvard.
[12] J.C. Pati, A. Salam, and J. Strathdee, “Are quarks composite?”, Phys. Lett. B 59, 265 (1975).
[13] A. Salam, “A gauge appreciation of developments in particle physics - 1979”, International Conference on High-energy
Physics, v.2, Geneva, Switzerland, 27 Jun 1979, pp.853-890.
[14] H.Terazawa, in Proc. XXII International Conf. on High Energy Physics, Leipzig, 1984, edited by A.Meyer and E.Wieczorek
(Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR, Zeuthen, 1984), Vol.I, p.63.
[15] H.Terazawa, in Proc.XXII International Conf. on New Trends in High-Energy Physics, Alshuta (Crimea), 2011,
edited by P.N. Bogolyubov and L.L. Jenkovszky (Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kiev, 2011), p.352;
arXiv:1109.3705v5[physics.gen-ph] 10 Feb 2012.
[16] H. Terazawa, "Subquark model of leptons and quarks”, Phys. Rev. D 22, 184 (1980).
[17] H.E. Haber and G.L. Kane, “The search for supersymmetry: probing physics beyond the standard model”, Physics Reports
117, no. 2-4 (1985): 75-263. Harvard.
[18] M. Dine, Supersymmetry and string theory: Beyond the Standard Model, Cambridge, UK: Univ. Pr. (2007).
[19] Z.Z. Aydin, S. Sultansoy, and A.U. Yilmazer, “Observable mixing angles and phases in MSSM”, No. AU-HEP-97-08.
SCAN-9710054, 1997.
[20] Z.Z. Aydin, S. Sultansoy, A.U. Yilmazer, “CKM mixings in E(6) induced Standard Model extension and in minimal
supersymmetric Standard Model”, Phys.Rev. D50,4711-4712 (1994).
[21] S. Sultansoy, “Four ways to TeV scale”, Turk J Phys 22, 575-594 (1998).
[22] https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/CombinedSummaryPlots/SUSY.
[23] https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/PhysicsResultsSUS#CMS_Supersymmetry_Physics_Result.
[24] S. Sultansoy, “SUSY, or not SUSY: that is the Question”, Briefing Book for the Zeuthen Workshop, v.2, pp.2.1.25, 2006.
[25] J.C. Pati and A. Salam, “Supersymmetry at the preonic or pre-preonic level and composite supergravity”, Nuclear Physics
B 214, 109 (1983).
[26] J.C. Pati and A. Salam, “Lepton number as the fourth "color"”, Phys. Rev. D 10, 275 (1974).
[27] K. Matumoto, “On a composite model for hadronic constituents”, Prog. Theor. Phys. 52, 1973 (1974).
[28] O.W. Greenberg, “New narrow resonances and separate localization of ordinary and color SU (3)”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 35,
1120 (1975).
[29] H. Fritzsch and G. Mandelbaum, “Weak interactions as manifestations of the substructure of leptons and quarks”, Phys.
Lett. B 102, 319 (1981).
[30] A. Celikel, M. Kantar, and S. Sultansoy, “A search for sextet quarks and leptogluons at the LHC”, Phys. Lett. B 443, 359
(1998).
[31] H. Harari, “A schematic model of quarks and leptons”, Phys. Lett. 86B, 83 (1979).
[32] M.A. Shupe, “A composite model of leptons and quarks”, Phys. Lett. 86B, 87 (1979).
[33] H. Harari, N. Seiberg, “The rishon model”, Nucl. Phys. B204, 141 (1982).
[34] U. Kaya, B. B. Oner, S. Sultansoy, “A minimal fermion-scalar preonic model”, arXiv:1707.08897v1 [hep-ph].