Leptons and other forces of Nature

Subhankar Roy∗ and Sagar Tirtha Goswami† Department of Physics, Gauhati University, India (Dated: June 14, 2021) Assuming that the neutrinos are not Majorana particles and the righthanded Diarc neutrinos do not exist, we propose that all the three flavour neutrinos are not elementary. We posit that the electron and the electron type neutrino are fundamental particles, while the other members of the lepton family are composite states. In this regard, two complex hidden scalar fields and two new hidden fundamental forces are introduced. The gauge symmetry SU(2)L ⊗ U(1)Y ⊗ SU(2)h ⊗ U(1)h describing the Electroweak and the Hidden forces, breaks down to U(1)Q ⊗ U(1)h after the Higgs mechanism.

INTRODUCTION The symmetry group of the SM is considered to be SU(3)c ⊗SU(2)L ⊗U(1)Y . The SU(3)c is associated with Understanding Nature at its fundamental level is the the strong interaction. The Glashow-Weinberg-Salam eternal quest of the Particle Physicists. The Standard (GWS) model relates the unified form of em and weak Model (SM) [1–4] of Particle Physics is one of the most forces, known as Electroweak (EW) force with the gauge successful theories that tries to describe the fundamental group SU(2)L ⊗ U(1)Y . The GWS model assumes that building blocks and the three fundamental forces of Na- right handed neutrinos are absent in nature. All the six ture in a single framework. It tells us about the spin-half generations of quarks and leptons with their left handed fermions: quarks and leptons that constitute the funda- counterparts transform as doublets (L) and their right mental building blocks of Nature. In the quark sector, handed counterparts (except for neutrino) transform as we get the up (u), down (d), charm (c), strange(s), top singlets under SU(2)L. The EW interaction is associated 1 2 3 (t) and beauty (b) quarks which are categorized in terms with three weak charges: T , T , T and weak hyper- 3 of three generations as shown below. charge Y . The charges T and Y linearly combine to give the em charge, Q = T 3 + Y/2. On incorporating the u c t Higgs mechanism [5–7] in the model, the symmetry of the d s b (1) Lagrangian is broken down spontaneously and the funda- 1st 2nd 3rd mental particles except the neutrinos get masses. Along with the quarks and leptons, the gauge bosons W ± and Similarly, we present the lepton family comprising elec- Z0 acquire masses. After spontaneous symmetry break- tron (e), muon (µ), tauon (τ), electron type neutrino ing, the γ remains massless. Hence, even though the (ν ), muon type neutrino (ν ) and tauon type neutrino e µ gauge symmetry is broken, still the U(1)Q symmetry is (ντ ) in the following way, preserved. The success of the GWS model is confirmed by the discovery of W ± [8, 9] and Z0 [10, 11] and finally  e   µ   τ  the Higgs boson [12, 13]. νe eµ ντ (2) 1st 2nd 3rd The neutrinos within the standard model remain mass- less, because GWS model does not allow righthanded It is to be noted that e, µ and τ have got electromag- neutrinos. The Quantum mechanics says that if neutri- netic charge, Q = −1, whereas the neutrinos are charge nos were massive, then certainly they must change their neutral. On the other hand, all quarks carry fractional flavour from one type to another (νe ↔ νµ, νµ ↔ ντ and arXiv:2106.06045v1 [hep-ph] 10 Jun 2021 charges. For u, c and t, the charge is +2/3 and the same νe ↔ ντ ). This phenomenon which is called Neutrino for d, s and b is −1/3. Besides, the SM tells about the oscillation [14–16] is confirmed by the experiments [17– massless gamma photon (γ) which mediates the electro- 28] and thus the neutrinos are massive for certain. This magnetic (em) interaction. Similarly, W +,W − and Z0 observation goes against the prediction of SM or GWS which are massive gauge bosons act as mediators of the model. Experiments so far, have not encountered the weak force. Similarly, SM tells about eight gluons that trace of the righthanded neutrinos. Hence, the GWS mediate the the strong interaction. All these mediators model might not be wrong in excluding the righthanded are spin-one particles. Both quarks and leptons partici- Dirac neutrinos. In order to solve this conjecture, the pate in the weak interaction, whereas the strong interac- theorists relate neutrinos with Majorana nature than tion is experienced only by the quarks, and except neu- Dirac’s and this hypothesis takes us beyond the SM. The trinos all particles participate in em interaction. Besides, Majorana nature is associated with the indistinguishabil- there exists a spin-zero particle named Higgs boson(H) ity of particle and antiparticle states for neutral fermions which is often associated with the origin of masses of the like neutrinos [29, 30]. The origin of the neutrino mass fundamental particles. is associated with the seesaw mechanism [31–43] which 2 in turn solely depends on the Majorana nature of the formed such that net hidden charge is zero. neutrinos. It is hypothesised that the seesaw mechanism occurs at a very high energy scale (E ∼ 1014 Gev) and it (c) There are two kinds hidden forces Shupti (Sh) and is associated with heavy Majorana neutrinos. The Majo- Sushupti (Ssh) in addition to the electromagnetic rana behaviour of neutrinos still awaits experimental ev- and weak force. idences. Apart from this, the SM or GWS model is silent (d) The fundamental particles: e, χ and ξ get masses on the existence of Dark matter (DM) [44–47], a kind of through the Higgs mechanism and νe remains mass- matter which does not interact with em radiation. Of less. which Universe is composed, the DM constitutes 27 %, whereas the normal matter contributes by an amount of (The words Dakshina, Vama, Shupti and Sushupti are 5 %. derived from Sanskrit which means right, left, state of Both of these problems related to neutrino and DM sleep and state of deep sleep respectively.) open new pathways to think beyond SM. Instead of go- In this model, only the first generation of the leptons ing beyond the SM, one alternative strategy is to review are fundamental particles. The e and νe are the spin dou- the primary axioms of the SM. The triumph of SM is blets (2s) and ξ and η are spin singlet(1s) states. Hence, beyond doubt and hence the fundamental framework of the bound state of a fundamental fermion and hidden GWS model cannot be tempered a lot. In the present singlet is a spin doublet state, 2s ⊗ 1s = 2s. Thus, we work, we shall try to modify the GWS model without de- obtain the other two generations of the leptons as shown viating much from the original philosophy. For the sake below. of argument, if it is confirmed in future experiments that  e   e χ   e ξ  there exists no right handed Dirac neutrino and at the , , . (3) same time, neutrinos are not Majorana particles as well, νe νe χ νe ξ then explaining the origin of neutrino mass will become We identify the bound states in the following way, difficult. We shall try to find this answer by looking into the possible coexistence of hidden matter with SM par- µ = (eχ), νµ = (νe χ), τ = (e ξ), ντ = (νe ξ). (4) ticles and the presence of hidden forces of Nature along with EW interaction. To keep the discussion simple, we Thus, we see that the e and µ (or τ) cannot be treated shall consider the leptons only. on same footing and the same holds good for νe and νµ (or ντ ). In addition, we see that all the three generations now share the same lepton number, Le and the necessity POSTULATES OF THE EXTENDED GWS of individual lepton number vanishes. These features go MODEL against the primary axioms of SM. The particles µ and τ are hidden charge neutral and We draw the motivation from Preon and Rishon mod- have got electromagnetic charge as −1, whereas the νµ els [48–51] of particle physics that emphasizes on the com- and ντ are neutral in terms of both hidden and electro- posite nature of the quarks and leptons. But most of magnetic charges. Hence the fundamental fermions and these models are ruled out after the discovery of Higgs the hidden scalars must carry equal and opposite hidden boson. In the present model, we assume that neutrinos charge. We assign the hidden charges to the particles as are Dirac particles and there exists no righthanded neu- shown below. trino and the mass of the neutrinos appear because of its composite nature. If neutrinos become composite parti- Qh(e, νe) = −1,Qh(χ, ξ) = +1. (5) cles, then the charged leptons cannot remain untouched The Shupti interaction is responsible for forming the by this fact. But unlike the other composite models, we bound states, whereas the Sushupti is experienced only emphasize here that all generations of the leptons may by the hidden scalars χ and ξ. We consider that Sushupti not have got substructure. We introduce a few hidden converts χ to ξ and vice versa. particles in the extended GWS model, that directly do not take part in EW interaction, but interact via some hidden forces. We posit the axioms of the model as shown THE EXTENDED GWS MODEL below.

(a) There are two fundamental complex hidden scalar We consider that the Sh and Ssh interactions are as- particles Dakshina (χ) and Vama(ξ), and two fun- sociated with gauge groups U(1)h and SU(2)h respec- tively. The U(1)h is generated by Qh, whereas the hid- damental fermions: electron (e) and electron type i i den isospin charges, T = τ /2 generate SU(2)h, where neutrino (νe) present within the SM. h i = 1, 2, 3 and τ i’s are the Pauli spin matrices. So, in (b) These fundamental particles are associated with the light of hidden interaction, Standard model gauge Hidden charge (Qh) and the bound states are group is extended to SU(2)L ⊗ U(1)Y ⊗ U(1)h ⊗ SU(2)h. 3

3 3 The charges associated with the particles are described Qem Y T Qh Th 1 in Table. (I) νeL 0 −1 + 2 −1 0 1 We choose the left-handed fermions, eL −1 −1 − 2 −1 0   eR −1 −2 0 −1 0 νeL 1 L = (6) χ 0 0 0 +1 + 2 eL 1 ξ 0 0 0 +1 − 2 φ+ +1 +1 + 1 0 0 as doublet under SU(2)L and singlet under SU(2)h. It 2 φ0 0 +1 − 1 0 0 transforms under U(1)Y and U(1)h. The right handed 2 electron eR is chosen as singlet under both SU(2)L and TABLE I. The charges associated with different fields for SU(2)h and it transforms under both U(1)Y and U(1)h. SU(2)L ⊗ U(1)Y ⊗ U(1)h ⊗ SU(2)h theory are shown.

U(1)Y −i Y α(x) +i α(x) L −→ e 2 L = e 2 L, i where, Bµ and Wµ represent the gauge bosons associated U(1)h −i Q β(x) +iβ(x) i L −→ e h L = e L, with EW interaction and that Cµ and Gµ are related with i Hidden interaction. SU(2)L −i τ θi(x) L −→ e 2 L, We present the Lagrangian(L) describing the “EW + U(1)Y −i Y α(x) +iα(x) R −→ e 2 R = e R, Hidden” force under SU(2)L ⊗ U(1)Y ⊗ SU(2)h ⊗ U(1)h U(1) gauge symmetry as in the following, R −→h e−i Qhβ(x) R = e+iβ(x) R, SU(2) SU(2) L = LF + LH + LS + LG + LY , (10) L −→h L0 = L, R −→L R0 = R, SU(2) R −→h R0 = R. where, i 0 The hidden scalar fields χ and ξ form a doublet under ¯ µ τ i g µ LF = i Lγ (∂µ − i g Wµ + i Bµ)L + i e¯Rγ (∂µ + SU(2)h, 2 2 i g0B )e − g0 (Lγ¯ µL +e ¯ γµe )C , χ µ R h R R µ i i φh = . (7) τ i τ ξ L = {(∂µ − i g Gµ − i g0 Cµ)φ }†{(∂ − i g Gi h h 2 h h µ h 2 µ and also transform under U(1)h. It transforms as a sin- 0 −i ghCµ)φh}, glet under both U(1)Y and SU(2)L. i 0 i µ τ µi g µ † τ i U(1) LS = {(∂ − i g W − i B )Φ} {(∂µ − i g Wµ h −i Qhβ(x) −iβ(x) φh −→ e φh = e φh, 2 2 2 0 i g SU(2)h τ i 2 † † 2 −i 2 κ (x) −i B )Φ} + µ (Φ Φ) − λ(Φ Φ) , φh −→ e φh, 2 µ U(1)Y SU(2)L 0 0 1 µν 1 i µνi 1 µν φh −→ φh = φh, φh −→ φh = φh L = − B B − W W − C C − G 4 µν 4 µν 4 µν The complex scalar fields, 1 i µνi Gµν G , φ+ 4 Φ = 0 , (8) φ 2 i i where, µ > 0, λ > 0. The Bµν , Wµν , Cµν and Gµν , i i is a doublet under SU(2)L. It transforms under U(1)Y , represent the Field tensors for the Bµ, Wµ, Cµ and Gµ but transforms as singlet under both U(1)h and SU(2)h. respectively. Here, The LY is the Yukawa term and this is presented below. U(1)Y −i Y α(x) − i α(x) Φ −→ e 2 Φ = e 2 Φ, † † i ¯ 2 † 2 ˜ ˜ † SU(2)L −i τ θi(x) LY = −ye(LΦeR) − yχ(φhΦ)(Φ φh) − yξ (φhΦ)(Φ φh) Φ −→ e 2 Φ, +H.C. (11) U(1) SU(2) Φ −→h Φ0 = Φ, Φ −→h Φ0 = Φ The SU(2) scalar field doublet, Φ is parametrized in The above transformation rules say that the L, R par- L the following way, ticipates in both EW and hidden interactions, Φ and φh participate in EW interaction and hidden interaction i i   1 −i τ ρ (x) 0 respectively. The covariant derivative of this theory is Φ = √ e 2v , (12) 2 v + H shown below. where v is the vacuum expectation value(vev), v = i i pµ2/λ, ρi(x)’s are the “would be Goldstone bosons”. τ i 0 Y τ i Dµ = ∂µ − i g Wµ − i g Bµ − i gh Gµ We take the unitary gauge which involves a gauge trans- 2 2 2 i i 0 i i τ ρ (x) −i ghQhCµ, (9) formation by a SU(2)L element, U(ρ ) = e 2v . This 4 bars the Goldstone’s boson to appear in the final equa- tion of motion and the Φ becomes real, 1  0  Φ = √ , (13) 2 v + H where, H is the Higgs Field. The Unitary gauge 0 i i0 changes: L → L , Wµ → Wµ , Bµ and eR do not change. (Note that in the subsequent discussion, in order to keep the expressions simple, we shall write the primed FIG. 1. The primary vertices for Shupti interaction. fields as the original one). The hidden scalar field φh being a SU(2)L singlet, remains unaffected. Similarly, the Unitary gauge has no effect on the hidden gauge i fields Cµ and Gµ. The Higgs Mechanism breaks the µ ∗ 2 2 ∗ µ ∗ 2 2 ∗ Lhidden = ∂ χ ∂µχ − yχv χ χ + ∂ ξ ∂µξ − yξ v ξ ξ SU(2)L ⊗ U(1)Y ⊗ SU(2)h ⊗ U(1)h gauge symmetry to gh U(1)e.m ⊗U(1)h. All the hidden gauge bosons along with + {i (χ∗ ∂µχ − χ ∂µχ∗) − i (ξ∗ ∂µξ 2 the physical photon field Aµ remain massless. In fact, the i −ξ ∂µξ∗)} G3 gauge bosons Gµ’s remain massless after Higgs mecha- µ nism, but we expect χ and ξ to acquire unequal masses. gh ∗ µ µ ∗ ∗ + i (ξ ∂ χ − χ ∂ ξ ) Gµ Therefore, the SU(2)h symmetry is not preserved. We 2 g may split the Lagrangian into two parts: the first part + h i (χ∗ ∂µξ − ξ ∂µχ∗) G 2 µ is the GWS framework, LGW S which tells us about the 0 ∗ µ µ ∗ ∗ µ µ ∗ dynamics of electron, electron type neutrino, Higgs Bo- + gh {i (χ ∂ χ − χ ∂ χ ) + i (ξ ∂ ξ − ξ ∂ ξ ) µ µ son and how they interact via electromagnetic and weak −(¯eγ e +ν ¯eLγ νeL)} Cµ interactions; and the second part which is L tells g 3 ∗  hidden + h (χ∗ Gµ + Gµ ξ∗) + g0 χ∗ Cµ us about the hidden scalar particles Dakshina and Vama, 2 h and how these particles along with e and ν take part in gh 3  e (χ G + G ξ) + g0 χ C the hidden interactions: Shupti and Sushupti. It also tells 2 µ µ h µ us how Dakshina and Vama interact with Higgs boson. gh ∗ µ3 µ ∗ 0 ∗ µ + (ξ G − G χ ) − ghξ C We present the Lagrangian as shown below. 2 g 3  h (ξ G + G∗ χ) − g0 ξ C 2 µ µ h µ L = L + L . (14) 2 2 ∗ 2 ∗ U(1)Q⊗U(1)h GW S hidden −(H + 2 v H)(yχ χ χ + yξ ξ ξ), (16)

where, 1 2 ∗ 1 2 where, Gµ = (Gµ − i Gµ), and Gµ = (Gµ + i Gµ). The Shupti is associated with the Cµ vector field which µ µ yev LGW S = i eγ¯ ∂µe + i ν¯eLγ ∂µνeL − √ e¯ e will be represented as “hidden photon”(γh) in subsequent 2 discussion. Similarly, Sushupti is mediated by the hidden g µ + µ −
∗ 3 +√ ν¯eL γ eL Wµ +e ¯L γ νeL Wµ vector bosons, Gµ, Gµ and Gµ and these are represented 2 as G, G∗ and G3 respectively. We discuss some important g + (¯ν γµ ν − e¯ γµ e )(Z cos θ points of the model below. 2 eL eL L L µ W

+Aµ sin θW ) (a) We see that the hidden photon field (Cµ) like the g0 physical photon field (A ) is massless, but unlike − (¯ν γµ ν +e ¯ γµ e + 2¯e γµ e ) µ 2 eL eL L L R R the latter, the former may interact with the elec- (Aµ cos θW − Zµ sin θW ) trically neutral particles. We get the the follow- 2 2 2 ing primary vertices for the Shupti interaction (see g v + µ− v 2 02 µ + W W + (g + g )Z Zµ Fig. (1)), 4 µ 8

µ 2 2 3 λ 4 − − + ∂µH ∂ H − µ H − λ v H − H e → e + γ , 4 h 2  νe → νe + γh, (17) g 2 1 µ + (H + 2 Hv) 2 Z Zµ 8 cos θW χ → χ + γh, (18) −  y +2W +W µ − √e Hee¯ (15) ξ → ξ + γh. (19) µ 2 where, W + = √1 (W 1 − i W 2), W − = √1 (W 1 + i W 2) µ 2 µ µ µ 2 µ µ (b) The Dakshina (χ)and Vama (ξ) have got only hid- −1 0 and, θW = tan (g /g) and, den charge and hidden isospin charges. The fields 5

FIG. 2. The primary vertices for Sushupti interaction.

FIG. 3. The muon decay process is depicted in the light of present model. In the above diagram, time flows in the upward direction. The muon is a bound state of e and χ. The electron decays to νe via emission take part neither in electromagnetic nor weak in- − − of W . The νe and χ bind together to form νµ. The W decays to e teractions and hence these are undetectable. So, andν ¯e. these particles may be considered as candidates of the dark matter [52–54]. Needless to mention, e and νe take part in hidden interaction in addition (f) We highlight that in the light of present model, it is to electromagnetic and weak interactions. possible to explain the decay processes of leptons. To exemplify, we choose the µ decay. We know in (c) In this model, the electron neutrino (νe) is mass- the SM, less. However, the other two leptons, νµ and ντ get masses because they are bound states. The µ → e + νµ +ν ¯e. (23) νe interact with χ and ξ respectively through the exchange of γh. The masses of χ and ξ are identi- This process is explained in the light of composite − fied as Mχ = yχv and Mξ = yξv respectively. As nature of µ as in the following: the e present in − me << mµ, mτ , the Mχ and Mξ must be quite the µ, decays to νe and W ; the χ sticks to νe − high. We see that mτ > mµ, so yξ > yχ. In ad- and forms νµ and the W decays to e andν ¯e (See

dition, we realize that mνµ , mντ << mµ and mτ . Fig. (3)). The process is depicted below, So we understand that the bound state of χ (or ξ) formed with massive e, and that between χ (or ξ) with massless ν do not share the same properties. e µ (e χ) → ν (ν χ) + W −; W − → e +ν ¯ It appears that the Sh interaction does not treat µ e e massive and massless particles equally in the con- text of composite state. This requires a thorough (g) In the light of present model, we can explain the analysis and detailed investigation which is beyond neutrino flavour oscillation in terms of composite the scope of our present work. nature and decay to hidden scalar particles. We try to explain this process by assuming that hid- (d) According to the second postulate, we see that in den scalar fields χ and ξ are present as a uniform addition to the bound states like µ and τ, we may background. The electron neutrino (νe) while it get the DM states like χχ¯, ξξ¯, χξ¯ andχξ ¯ . These travels, may get bound to the χ (or ξ) because of states are unobservable. However, the present Shupti interaction and accordingly νµ (or ντ ) state model does not deny the existence of the follow- is formed. For an observer, νe converts to νµ (or ing dileptonic states like eν¯e,eν ¯ e and νeν¯e. We ντ ) and similarly, when this bound state is broken, expect that the upcoming experiments will be able the χ (or ξ) is released and one observes the same to witness these particles. as a conversion from νµ (or ντ ) to νe. (e) We see that similar to the Sh interaction, the Ssh force is associated with ‘Hidden Isospin rais- ing’ (HIRC), ‘Hidden Isospin lowering’ (HILC) and νe + χ(ξ) → νµ (ντ ) → νe + χ(ξ). (24) ‘Hidden neutral Isospin’ (HNIC) currents. The cor- responding primary vertices are shown below. The conversion of νµ to ντ and that from ντ to νµ can be understood in terms of the Hidden isospin ξ → χ + G, (HIRC) (20) raising and lowering currents (H.I.R.C and H.I.L.C) χ → ξ + G∗, (HILC) (21) and these are depicted in Fig. (4). To illustrate, ξ (χ) → ξ (χ) + G3, (HINC) (22)

∗ ∗ ¯ The Feynman diagrams are depicted in Fig. (2). νµ → ντ + G ,G → χ + ξ. (25) 6

results obtained from the recent muon g − 2 experiment, which reveals that the g value of muon is slightly higher than the predicted value [59–61]. Perhaps, the Sh inter- action of e with χ plays a role in elevating the g value of muon. One may say that the present framework is an exten- sion of the GWS model in terms of curtailing the number of fundamental leptons and also introducing hidden mat- ter fields and forces. It is often seen that neutrino mass models conjecture either the presence of righthanded neu- FIG. 4. The neutrino flavour oscillation between νµ and ντ is de- scribed in the light of present model. In the above Feynman diagrams, trino or neutrinos being fundamentally Majorana parti- the time flows in the upward direction. The νµ is composed of νe and ∗ cles. However, both the cases are not validated experi- χ. The χ decays to ξ via emission of G . The χ binds itself to νe and ∗ ¯ forms νµ. The G decays to χ and ξ. The hidden scalar particles are mentally. The present analysis says that only νe, being unobservable and hence it appears that νµ is converted to ντ . Similarly, a fundamental particle is massless. The ν in associa- ντ is converted to νµ via the emission of G. e tion with hidden scalar fields χ and ξ forms νµ and ντ respectively, and thus may acquire masses. The forma- and, tion of the bound state and the flavour changing phe- nomenon are attributed to the Hidden forces. So, the ντ → νµ + G, G → χ¯ + ξ. (26) hidden matter fields and hidden forces are part and par- cel of SM. However, a detailed analysis of Shupti and The detectors are unable to detect these particles, Sushupti forces requires further investigation. like χ or ξ that are present either in initial or final Although we have discussed the lepton sector only, yet state, or in both. Hence, the discrepancies that are the SM is not complete without the quarks. Based on the observed in the neutrino oscillation experiments are symmetry arguments, one may try to describe the second owing to the presence of the above-said hidden par- and third generations of quarks as composite particles. ticles and not because of the fourth sterile neutrino But the question remains whether it is required or not state [55–58]. as the problems within the lepton sector are not akin to those of quarks. But avenues are still open as the fundamental laws of Nature are not understood in full and the present work adds a new perspective to the same. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

The present model, unlike the other composite frame- works, does not insist on all the leptons having substruc- tures. The present framework contains the essence of ∗ [email protected] (Corresponding author) GWS model within itself and also allows the hidden mat- † [email protected] ter fields: Vama and Dakshina to reside within the frame- [1] S. L. Glashow, Partial Symmetries of Weak Interactions, work of SM. The model posits e and ν as fundamen- Nucl. Phys. 22, 579 (1961). e [2] S. Weinberg, A Model of Leptons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, tal particles and the rest as composite states. Through 1264 (1967). Higgs Mechanism, both electron and the hidden mat- [3] A. Salam, Weak and Electromagnetic Interactions, Conf. ter fields obtain masses. The hidden matter fields do Proc. C 680519, 367 (1968). not interact via EW force, rather they experience two [4] S. L. Glashow, J. Iliopoulos, and L. Maiani, Weak Inter- new forces: Shupti and Sushupti. On the other hand, actions with Lepton-Hadron Symmetry, Phys. Rev. D 2, 1285 (1970). e and νe feel both EW and Shupti forces . The gauge group that describes the EW and hidden interaction is [5] F. Englert and R. Brout, Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 321 (1964). SU(2)L ⊗ U(1)Y ⊗ SU(2)h ⊗ U(1)h and Higgs mecha- [6] P. W. Higgs, Broken symmetries, massless particles and nism breaks the symmetry to U(1)Q ⊗U(1)h. The model gauge fields, Phys. Lett. 12, 132 (1964). denies the existence of either Majorana or righthanded [7] P. W. Higgs, Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Dirac neutrinos. Gauge Bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 508 (1964). We see that the GWS model and other Composite [8] G. Arnison et al. (UA1), Experimental Observation of models like Preon or Rishon models treat the charged Isolated Large Transverse√ Energy Electrons with Asso- leptons on equal footing. In GWS model, all the leptons ciated Missing Energy at s = 540 GeV, Phys. Lett. B 122, 103 (1983). appear as fundamental, whereas the composite models [9] M. Banner et al. (UA2), Observation of Single Isolated posit all the leptons to have substructures. But in our Electrons of High Transverse Momentum in Events with model, we see that electron and muon cannot be treated Missing Transverse Energy at the CERN anti-p p Col- on an equal footing. This is important concerning the lider, Phys. Lett. B 122, 476 (1983). 7

[10] G. Arnison et al. (UA1), Experimental Observation of [30] W. H. Furry, On transition probabilities in double beta- Lepton Pairs of Invariant Mass Around 95-GeV/c**2 at disintegration, Phys. Rev. 56, 1184 (1939). the CERN SPS Collider, Phys. Lett. B 126, 398 (1983). [31] P. Minkowski, µ → eγ at a Rate of One Out of 109 Muon [11] P. Bagnaia et al. (UA2), Evidence for Z0 → e+e− at the Decays?, Phys. Lett. B 67, 421 (1977). CERNpp ¯ Collider, Phys. Lett. B 129, 130 (1983). [32] M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, Complex [12] G. Aad et al. (ATLAS), Observation of a new particle Spinors and Unified Theories, Conf. Proc. C 790927, in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with 315 (1979), arXiv:1306.4669 [hep-th]. the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 716, 1 [33] R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Neutrino Mass and (2012), arXiv:1207.7214 [hep-ex]. Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation, Phys. Rev. Lett. [13] S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS), Observation of a New Bo- 44, 912 (1980). son at a Mass of 125 GeV with the CMS Experiment at [34] S. Weinberg, Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Pro- the LHC, Phys. Lett. B 716, 30 (2012), arXiv:1207.7235 cesses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1566 (1979). [hep-ex]. [35] Z.-z. Xing, Naturalness and Testability of TeV Seesaw [14] S. M. Bilenky and B. Pontecorvo, Again on Neutrino Os- Mechanisms, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 180, 112 (2009), cillations, Lett. Nuovo Cim. 17, 569 (1976). arXiv:0905.3903 [hep-ph]. [15] S. M. Bilenky and B. Pontecorvo, Lepton Mixing and [36] W. Konetschny and W. Kummer, Nonconservation of To- Neutrino Oscillations, Phys. Rept. 41, 225 (1978). tal Lepton Number with Scalar Bosons, Phys. Lett. B 70, [16] S. M. Bilenky and S. T. Petcov, Massive Neutrinos 433 (1977). and Neutrino Oscillations, Rev. Mod. Phys. 59, 671 [37] M. Magg and C. Wetterich, Neutrino Mass Problem and (1987), [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 61, 169 (1989), Erra- Gauge Hierarchy, Phys. Lett. B 94, 61 (1980). tum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 60, 575–575 (1988)]. [38] J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Neutrino Masses in SU(2) [17] R. Davis, Jr., D. S. Harmer, and K. C. Hoffman, Search x U(1) Theories, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2227 (1980). for neutrinos from the sun, Phys. Rev. Lett. 20, 1205 [39] T. P. Cheng and L.-F. Li, Neutrino Masses, Mixings and (1968). Oscillations in SU(2) x U(1) Models of Electroweak In- [18] Q. R. Ahmad et al. (SNO), Measurement of the rate of teractions, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2860 (1980). − 8 νe + d → p + p + e interactions produced by B solar [40] G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi, and C. Wetterich, Proton Lifetime neutrinos at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, Phys. and Fermion Masses in an SO(10) Model, Nucl. Phys. B Rev. Lett. 87, 071301 (2001), arXiv:nucl-ex/0106015. 181, 287 (1981). [19] S. Fukuda et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Solar B-8 and [41] R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Neutrino Masses hep neutrino measurements from 1258 days of Super- and Mixings in Gauge Models with Spontaneous Parity Kamiokande data, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5651 (2001), Violation, Phys. Rev. D 23, 165 (1981). arXiv:hep-ex/0103032. [42] R. Foot, H. Lew, X. G. He, and G. C. Joshi, Seesaw Neu- [20] Q. R. Ahmad et al. (SNO), Direct evidence for neutrino trino Masses Induced by a Triplet of Leptons, Z. Phys. flavor transformation from neutral current interactions in C 44, 441 (1989). the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, [43] E. Ma, Pathways to naturally small neutrino masses, 011301 (2002), arXiv:nucl-ex/0204008. Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1171 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9805219. [21] R. M. Bionta et al., Observation of a Neutrino Burst [44] V. C. Rubin and J. Ford, W. Kent, Rotation of the An- in Coincidence with Supernova SN 1987a in the Large dromeda Nebula from a Spectroscopic Survey of Emission Magellanic Cloud, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1494 (1987). Regions, Astrophys. J. 159, 379 (1970). [22] Y. Fukuda et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Evidence for os- [45] V. Rubin, J. Ford, W.K., and N. Thonnard, Rotational cillation of atmospheric neutrinos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, properties of 21 SC galaxies with a large range of lumi- 1562 (1998), arXiv:hep-ex/9807003. nosities and radii, from NGC 4605 (R = 4kpc) to UGC [23] K. Eguchi et al. (KamLAND), First results from Kam- 2885 (R = 122kpc)., Astrophys. J. 238, 471 (1980). LAND: Evidence for reactor anti-neutrino disappear- [46] G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Particle dark mat- ance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 021802 (2003), arXiv:hep- ter: evidence, candidates and constraints, Physics Re- ex/0212021. ports 405, 279 (2005). [24] F. P. An et al. (Daya Bay), Observation of electron- [47] E. Ma, Verifiable radiative seesaw mechanism of neutrino antineutrino disappearance at Daya Bay, Phys. Rev. mass and dark matter, Phys. Rev. D 73, 077301 (2006), Lett. 108, 171803 (2012), arXiv:1203.1669 [hep-ex]. arXiv:hep-ph/0601225. [25] M. H. Ahn et al. (K2K), Indications of neutrino oscilla- [48] H. Fritzsch and G. Mandelbaum, Weak Interactions tion in a 250 km long baseline experiment, Phys. Rev. as Manifestations of the Substructure of Leptons and Lett. 90, 041801 (2003), arXiv:hep-ex/0212007. Quarks, Phys. Lett. B 102, 319 (1981). [26] K. Abe et al. (T2K), Indication of Electron Neutrino Ap- [49] H. Harari and N. Seiberg, A Dynamical Theory for the pearance from an Accelerator-produced Off-axis Muon Rishon Model, Phys. Lett. B 98, 269 (1981). Neutrino Beam, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 041801 (2011), [50] J. C. Pati and A. Salam, Lepton Number as the arXiv:1106.2822 [hep-ex]. Fourth Color, Phys. Rev. D 10, 275 (1974), [Erratum: [27] K. Abe et al. (T2K), Observation of Electron Neutrino Phys.Rev.D 11, 703–703 (1975)]. Appearance in a Muon Neutrino Beam, Phys. Rev. Lett. [51] J.-J. Dugne, S. Fredriksson, J. Hansson, and E. Predazzi, 112, 061802 (2014), arXiv:1311.4750 [hep-ex]. Preon trinity: A New model of leptons and quarks, in 2nd [28] K. Hirata et al. (Kamiokande-II), Observation of a Neu- International Conference Physics Beyond the Standard trino Burst from the Supernova SN 1987a, Phys. Rev. Model: Beyond the Desert 99: Accelerator, Nonaccelera- Lett. 58, 1490 (1987). tor and Space Approaches (1999) arXiv:hep-ph/9909569. [29] E. Majorana, Teoria simmetrica dell’elettrone e del [52] T. Matos, F. S. Guzman, and L. A. Urena-Lopez, Scalar positrone, Nuovo Cim. 14, 171 (1937). field as dark matter in the universe, Class. Quant. Grav. 8

17, 1707 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9908152. [58] M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube), Searching for eV-scale [53] C. Boehm and P. Fayet, Scalar dark matter candidates, sterile neutrinos with eight years of atmospheric neutri- Nucl. Phys. B 683, 219 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0305261. nos at the IceCube Neutrino Telescope, Phys. Rev. D [54] C. Boehm, X. Chu, J.-L. Kuo, and J. Pradler, Scalar dark 102, 052009 (2020), arXiv:2005.12943 [hep-ex]. matter candidates revisited, Phys. Rev. D 103, 075005 [59] S. Borsanyi et al., Leading hadronic contribution to the (2021), arXiv:2010.02954 [hep-ph]. muon magnetic moment from lattice QCD, Nature 593, [55] S. Dodelson, A. Melchiorri, and A. Slosar, Is cosmology 51 (2021), arXiv:2002.12347 [hep-lat]. compatible with sterile neutrinos?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, [60] T. Aoyama et al., The anomalous magnetic moment of 041301 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0511500. the muon in the Standard Model, Phys. Rept. 887, 1 [56] M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube), Searches for Sterile Neu- (2020), arXiv:2006.04822 [hep-ph]. trinos with the IceCube Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, [61] B. Abi et al. (Muon g-2), Measurement of the Positive 071801 (2016), arXiv:1605.01990 [hep-ex]. Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment to 0.46 ppm, Phys. [57] M. G. Aartsen et al. (IceCube), eV-Scale Sterile Neutrino Rev. Lett. 126, 141801 (2021), arXiv:2104.03281 [hep- Search Using Eight Years of Atmospheric Muon Neutrino ex]. Data from the IceCube Neutrino Observatory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 141801 (2020), arXiv:2005.12942 [hep-ex].