I don't believe that protons have a half life

I have no idea. Just pasted below some information which I got from the web:

The proton is a baryon and is considered to be composed of two up quarks and one down quark. It has long been considered to be a stable particle, but recent developments of grand unification models have suggested that it might decay with a half-life of about 1032 years.

Dear Andrew Paul McKenzie Pegman but according to GUT and recent experiments ( Super-Kamiokande ), protons should have half.

Dear Subir Bandyopadhyay there are different views in different theories.

Sir proton is the most stable Hadron of this universe and its stability is till date an open question.

Dear Preston Guynn thanks for your detail answer and time. If the proton is stable then why these two famous theories have contradict results.

In the beginning of 19th century, there was the time, when Sir Ernest Rutherford and other famous scientists were struggling to understand nucleus and fundamental particles and building block of atom, and upto 1950 or 1970s, mankind knew enough about subatomic particles too. May be again we have to wait for this question.....

Dear Naveen Gupta , long time to talk with you. At this time, i am really expecting some answer from your side. I know this is an open question, but there should be some discussion upon this concept. This is what about Physics...

First of all we can not talk about half life of a fundamental particle. It is its complete life time. Eg., neutron whose life time is about15 minutes. This is its life time not halc life.

Thanks for your time and answer Naveen Gupta . Let's wait for further discussion and different view.

The proton refuses to decay! So, GUT is now gutted, along with GRT and other “continuous field” based theories of official physics. The game of mathematical fantasies in physics is over! Please see:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news/proton-decay-experiment-on-the-brink-of-extinction-62983

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Any_Effective_Refutation_of_Einsteins_Theories_of_Relativity_Possible#view=5ed02101cc6457205b6d60d5

Einstein’s artificial “spacetime field” as an abstract mathematical structure was created to drown the “evil (particle) quanta”. Additional and far more thicker “fields” – Quantum, Higgs, QCD etc., were fabricated in thought (through mathematics) to prevent any massive particle quanta from raising its head above the “fields” in “free” state for any length of time – “Matter (particle) is supposed to be a Myth”!

But Einstein himself just about a year before his death had already brought an untimely demise of his “continuous field” fantasy, in a letter to his friend Michele Besso (1954): “I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., continuous structure. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, (and of) the rest of modern physics” A. Pais, Subtle is the Lord …” The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein”, Oxford University Press, (1982) 467,

Dear sir Abdul Malek thanks for your time, detailed analysis and scientific view point on this concept with recent citations. Still there are umpteen mathematical fantasies in Physics that actually need new platform with solid identification, but without mathematics no other carrier is there to explain theoretical concepts of physics until and unless scientific societies have valid and solid experimental platform.