I am reading about the stability of the Universe. The link to this work by Isabella Masina, is also in the previous post.
It seems that the Universe is as interesting as it can be, as Freeman Dyson wrote many years ago. The experimental values for the Standard Model, are such, that it could be possible that in a desert, i.e. no more interesting physics, the Universe is Unstable, or Stable, a bit away from the natural boundary of the so-called, Planck Mass.
This brings to mind the Astronomical models before Nicolaus Copernicus.
Following Ptolemy, there was a complicated system of calculation, to predict planet positions. Copernicus Heliocentric model, was easier for calculations. It seems to me, that String Theory, which is hard for particle physics predictions, is in worse shape than Ptolemy's Epicycle Model. To this day, there is not a single prediction, checked at particle physics laboratories. This in itself is not so bad, Isaac Newton himself, turned to the sky, when he realized that his Universal Theory of Gravity, was difficult to prove in a laboratory, as Cavendish finally did a hundred years later. The problems is deeper now. There is no clear path of how to proceed, what to fix, what to improve, where to look at.
At times it seems that theoretical physicists, are looking for a nice theory, and not for a useful theory.
All of a sudden, an unexpected experimental result is announced. The Higgs particle has a mass, just small enough to make the Universe Unstable, or Stable, and as far as I can see, only one of the creators of string theory, Holger Bech Nielsen, has something interesting to say. Besides, his observation is not based on string theory, it is just a nice guess, of how to solve the so-called "Cosmological Constant Problem." Here is Nielsen's paper.
Ms. Masina's calculations are daunting.
I hope to get a simple testable principle; something very interesting just happened.