In a way. The Higgs mechanism was originally developed to explain the masses of the W and Z bosons, and has since been extended to explain the fundamental fermion masses as well (leptons and quarks). It's not so much that the Higgs only couples to the weak force, but that the weak carrier bosons are the only bosons that couple to the Higgs.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. The Standard Model doublet consists of the three that get eaten, and the Higgs h. In the theoretical SUSY two-doublet model, a second doublet is added, which consists of H+, H-, H, and A. None of those are eaten, so that brings the total to 5.
Yeah, this is what I thought you were saying, but if you count the three 'eaten' Higgs' and the Higgs h, why then do you not count the H, H+, H- and A as separate particles, bringing the total to 8? It's ok, you don't have to answer that! I think I'll bow out of this discussion as particle is certainly not my area of expertise! I also liked how your reply to my first post "Not quite" really meant "Not at all!" it was very generous of you!
You could pick up Griffiths' Introduction to Elementary Particles if you want to learn more on your own. He does a good job with most of the Standard Model stuff, but there's not too much on beyond-SM topics (such as the supersymmetric concept we're discussing in this thread).
Got it already!
I don't think I'll have time to give it a good read until after I write up, but perhaps I'll be able to give it a look over in a few months. Thanks for bringing me a bit more up to date on the Higgs mechanism, now if anyone talks to me about this, I can sound like I know what I'm talking about! 
*MySmiley*_________jiggY,
~Life's a puzzle. Go figure.
_
nigelgoboom: "Whatever poopster..."
~Life's a puzzle. Go figure.
_
nigelgoboom: "Whatever poopster..."
This message last edited by jiggy on 17/06/2010 at 08:24:39 AM
US experiment hints at 'multiple God particles'
- 15/06/2010 04:04:14 AM
812 Views
- 15/06/2010 04:11:11 AM
423 Views
- 15/06/2010 04:11:11 AM
423 Views
I minored in modern physics, which means, I have enough knowledge to be.....
- 15/06/2010 04:45:35 AM
407 Views
this has always bothered me about particle physicists....
- 15/06/2010 05:32:26 AM
438 Views
Yeah, always been my problem, too.
- 15/06/2010 05:44:30 AM
374 Views
Lederman wanted to call it "the goddamn particle," but the publisher wouldn't let him.
- 15/06/2010 06:26:56 AM
398 Views
- 15/06/2010 06:26:56 AM
398 Views
Well, we've been pretty bad at name stuff
- 15/06/2010 08:52:09 AM
409 Views
"Giant radiating dyke swarms"?!!! 
- 15/06/2010 05:57:11 PM
401 Views
- 15/06/2010 05:57:11 PM
401 Views
It's more than a few right answers.
- 15/06/2010 06:26:35 AM
516 Views
did you go to school in wisconsin? cause you sound just like that guy
- 15/06/2010 07:07:49 AM
382 Views
- 15/06/2010 07:07:49 AM
382 Views
Yet, when determining the measure for what a planet is, Pluto vanished from the list!
- 15/06/2010 07:14:28 AM
414 Views
- 15/06/2010 07:14:28 AM
414 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
510 Views
- 15/06/2010 08:45:43 AM
510 Views
It had to lose its status or you'd have to memorize several more planets
- 15/06/2010 08:57:20 AM
427 Views
y'all are screwing up my "uncertainty principle" joke dammit! 
*NM*
- 15/06/2010 09:19:11 AM
170 Views
*NM*
- 15/06/2010 09:19:11 AM
170 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
425 Views
As a physicist, I find this quite interesting.
- 16/06/2010 09:08:15 PM
519 Views
Not quite.
- 16/06/2010 09:57:18 PM
501 Views
Re: Not quite.
- 16/06/2010 10:22:14 PM
518 Views