Masses and Lifetimes
I recognize and acknowledge this as the be all and end all of theory. Without this knowledge we are simply screaming in a thunderstorm. The primary reason that modern theorists fumble here is that they have tacitly accepted quantitive measures as randomly selected (by logic?) and applied to the universe in a then consistent manner. Note: No such acceptance of randomness exists in the realm of qualitive attributes. The nature of the forces operating in the universe is consistently integrated with the conservation laws associated with them, i.e. if one conservation law fails, they all fail thereby requiring the forces to be qualitively consistent with one another.
I recently had occasion to play the game "minesweeper" [probably on your hard drive under games somewhere] which illustrates an important point. In this game you have x number of squares in a regular pattern. Click on 'em to see if they're bombs. Hit bomb = dead. If not bomb then number between 1 and 8 signifying the number of bombs in the eight surrounding squares. From the data obtained you can often determine that a given square does or does not have a bomb under it. This gives you the game part. But your first move and perhaps a few more (even the second from last move) are strictly chance. In the Real Universe Game all your moves are (by my principles) strictly determined by former moves.
No chance is involved.The configurations of modern theorists allow a "minesweeper" type setup where some chance enters into the model. Not chance of the "uncertainty principle" type but total, bald chance. You pick a number out of a hat and apply it as a particle mass value and somehow the universe always remembers that value and honors it through every possible interaction (without any mechanism). I am not talking "sum over histories" here. That would eventually lead to a strictly determined mass value. I mean in their universe there can be two different numbers for two particles (or forces!) which have no logical relationship to the other. Of course, not every last physicist accepts such horrors but its coming to that.
So what can be said about mass values?Well, I have been able to generate the electron  proton mass ratio (playing it off the fine structure constant and the ground state of hydrogen). And I believe that I have rendered it more or less correctly as the most probable value of all possible values which satisfy the given equation (see e/P mass ratio ... sect.19).In that section I made the assumption that the value of the force between the electron and proton in the hydrogen ground state on the Unit Scale (~10^{13}) is the number of elementary significance rather than the e/P ratio or FSC (both pure numbers). I do not accept as elemental, any pure number other than π or e (these are related to and are on the order of the dimensionality of the universe  3). All other pure numbers must be derivative, i.e. "they got that way over time". It follows then that because all particle masses are functionally related to the e/P ratio, they must also develop over time. They are not stable values but change gradually, now imperceptibly. By my principles all mass values whatsoever must relate back to (be consistent with) the e/P ratio. What is lacking is the logic which generates more values. Perhaps there is a separate logic for families of particles (like baryon, meson, fermion, boson logical forms) which subsequently generate all particle masses and lifetimes. The nightmare is that these values are each separately derived in a unique manner as in the first illustration.
More likely the situation is that depicted in the second (hierarchical  like everything else). The gross mass of a particle is determined by the mass loss required by the master set of relationships given in "Mathematical Relationships Between Constants" (from unit mass (1um) to ~10^{13}um). Because the relationship between the isotropic field and the positional field is fixed by the character of the photon, vis. the photon possesses mass/energy (a positional trait) and is a propagation through and in the isotropic field (electric/magnetic components) ... it must be assigned ... perpetually ... "unit" measure by definition. Something must be defined as stable through time against which changes are compared. Thus, in the equation F=ma, the acceleration parameter is fixed at one on the unit scale while the "mass" part is changing at such rate as to make it presently ~10^{13} um. So the ground state force in the hydrogen atom (one electron and one proton) must be
Any mass values wildly outside of this range require so much energy to produce that they will not be found in nature or are lighter ^{( prohibited by ?)} than the electron . Concerning the lifetimes of particlesIf the universe is indeed the embodiment of logic itself, as an integer count it is barred from losing its incremental components (baryon number). To do so would defeat its basic purpose. Therefore, there can be no proton decay ... EVER . The counting process must, in principle be inviolate. Hence, the neutron (the hypothetical elementary unit) can decay into proton and electron provided that the baryon family number is conserved. Thus, fundamentally, the proton is a neutron but with a charge. While the electron can be thought of as the "other part" which also must hang around permanently (unless recombined with proton & neutrino to reform the neutron).
