The EM and strong forces have no Higgs couplings, as their carrier particles (photons and gluons) are massless. There's no proposal of any Higgs with a color charge as far as I'm aware, and definitely not in a SUSY model.
Ah, I see. So are you saying that the Higgs 'clings' to the bosons of a force (in our case, the Weak)? I suppose if it only couples to the Weak, there would certainly be no colour charge.
One Higgs doublet is actually four particles, three of which get "eaten" by the W+, W-, and Z bosons to generate their masses. (In technical terms, they're Goldstone bosons which provide the longitudinal polarization component; compare with the photon, which is massless and has no longitudinal polarization.) The fourth is what we generally think of as the actual "Higgs boson." If there were two doublets, that pattern would be repeated, so in addition to h, we'd have H+, H-, H, and A. (The A is a bit confusing given that A is usually used for photons in electroweak unification, but that's the convention.)
I'm slightly confused by what you're trying to say here; I follow what you say about the W and Z bosons and then about the actual "Higgs boson", but that only accounts for four Higgs particles. Where does the fifth come in to play?
I'm at Fermilab this summer (working on CMS, though) and there is definitely a sense of rivalry. The Tevatron can no longer claim the highest energy, but this has just shifted everyone's bragging to focus on luminosity, where it still dominates.
I've always been disappointed that my undergrad was completely missing a particle module. I'm finishing my masters now and I kind of crammed as much particle physics as I could into the year, so I think my knowledge in this area is rushed at best!
But wine was the great assassin of both tradition and propriety...
-Brandon Sanderson, The Way of Kings
-Brandon Sanderson, The Way of Kings
US experiment hints at 'multiple God particles'
- 15/06/2010 04:04:14 AM
703 Views
- 15/06/2010 04:11:11 AM
347 Views
- 15/06/2010 04:11:11 AM
347 Views
I minored in modern physics, which means, I have enough knowledge to be.....
- 15/06/2010 04:45:35 AM
336 Views
this has always bothered me about particle physicists....
- 15/06/2010 05:32:26 AM
355 Views
Yeah, always been my problem, too.
- 15/06/2010 05:44:30 AM
297 Views
Lederman wanted to call it "the goddamn particle," but the publisher wouldn't let him. 
- 15/06/2010 06:26:56 AM
319 Views
- 15/06/2010 06:26:56 AM
319 Views
Well, we've been pretty bad at name stuff
- 15/06/2010 08:52:09 AM
326 Views
"Giant radiating dyke swarms"?!!! 
- 15/06/2010 05:57:11 PM
323 Views
- 15/06/2010 05:57:11 PM
323 Views
It's more than a few right answers.
- 15/06/2010 06:26:35 AM
443 Views
did you go to school in wisconsin? cause you sound just like that guy
- 15/06/2010 07:07:49 AM
302 Views
- 15/06/2010 07:07:49 AM
302 Views
Yet, when determining the measure for what a planet is, Pluto vanished from the list!
- 15/06/2010 07:14:28 AM
336 Views
- 15/06/2010 07:14:28 AM
336 Views
right, but it's still out there in the same orbit with the same momentum and positioning
- 15/06/2010 08:45:43 AM
424 Views
- 15/06/2010 08:45:43 AM
424 Views
It had to lose its status or you'd have to memorize several more planets
- 15/06/2010 08:57:20 AM
358 Views
y'all are screwing up my "uncertainty principle" joke dammit! 
*NM*
- 15/06/2010 09:19:11 AM
138 Views
*NM*
- 15/06/2010 09:19:11 AM
138 Views
Totally missed it *NM*
I was disappointed they didn't make all the dwarf planets into planet planets.
- 16/06/2010 01:00:51 PM
351 Views
As a physicist, I find this quite interesting.
- 16/06/2010 09:08:15 PM
442 Views
Not quite.
- 16/06/2010 09:57:18 PM
427 Views
Re: Not quite.
- 16/06/2010 10:22:14 PM
437 Views
Nerds!
- 17/06/2010 12:19:57 AM
265 Views
- 17/06/2010 12:19:57 AM
265 Views