Yes. And while the interaction of virtual photons is not firmly understood in all aspects, one of the best explanations (that I've read so far anyway) is that virtual photons carry charge sign information (eg - or +) in one polarization axis.
Load of ....
That would still not explain why the same emitted particle would cause things it hits to attract, and things it hits to repel based merely on charge. There is not one single particulate theory for any type of attraction that is consistent with what we know of how actual particles behave, including gravity. There is not one sensible reason why I should believe that an emitted particle striking another particle causes it to be attracted to the particle that did the emitting.
Not one. In no known laws of physics does this ever occur, except in theoretical physics because they could not come up with a logical answer, so throw in virtual particles, which are still emitted, still strike other particles, yet do both attraction and repulsion, merely depending on whether they need attraction or repulsion in their math.
Yes, you should always rely on wikipedia to accurately represent current scientific thinking.
It is not even a real particle, just a disturbance in the field.
Virtual Particles: What are they? | Of Particular Significance
A field that still has no explanation of why it exists, or what it is composed of. As of this point in our technology, there exists no explanation that is not contrived for the existence of electric, magnetic or gravitational fields. The best we have is it is a force. Is it composed of particles, magic Fairie Dust? Anybody's guess is as good as anyone's right now.
No. It's not a question of philosophy. It intrinsically *is* a question of science because *ALL* things belonging to the natural realm are the province of science. If virtual photons really are excitations of the underlying quantum field then they are part of what science studies. The temporary nature of the particle does not make it something that is not in the realm of science. Temporary particles that arise and disappear again are one of the natural consequences of the Uncertainty principle. It well explains, as Stephen Hawking demonstrated years ago, how tiny black holes can eventually disappear altogether.
And a particle that is not a particle, but is virtual, i.e. unreal, belongs in the realms of philosophy and religion.
At least you pretend photons are real. At least you pretend quarks are real, even if they have never been seen. At least you pretend Higgs bosuns are real. You even pretend WIMPS and MACHOS are real, even if they are Fairie Dust.
No. The math predicts interactions *very well*. Experimental data - and mountains of it - demonstrates this. Even if the name of the particle is incorrect, that doesn't change the fact that electric charges interact *exactly* as the math predicts they will.
They interact exactly as the math predicts they will without the use of virtual particles. Virtual particles do not enter into the equations except when one decides to attempt to explain the electrical field. Nowhere in the standard model are virtual particles required, only in quantum physics, and the standard model is the one upheld every single time, even when SUSY theory fails.
https://www.simonsfoundation.org/qu...mmetry-fails-tests-physicists-seek-new-ideas/
And the dominance of that theory for the last 30 years is why Fairie Dust is needed to make the math work.
Nope, now there you're wrong. Neutrons do not repel each other. You've lost at this point.
Can a nucleus be made up of neutrons only?
"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The question then arises as to whether a neutron system made up of more than two neutrons could exist. On the basis of current knowledge of interactions between nucleons, the theoretical answer is probably not. In fact, for 40 years now, all attempts to show experimentally that such a system could exist have failed."[/FONT]
Free neutrons do decay. But when bound together - say, in an atomic nucleus - they tend to remain stable. Their presence is one of the reasons larger atomic nuclei can exist without EM overpowering the strong nuclear force at larger separations between protons.
Free neutrons decay in less that 18 minutes, and are only stable when bound to protons in a nucleus. So your theory of neutron stars is pure Fairie Dust. It is not a body spinning at 30,000 RPM, so Fairie Dust neutronium needed to be invented, but an electrical oscillation.
You're confusing electrical interactions with gravity. "Dark matter" is hypothesized as a gravitational, not electrical, attractor.
Dark matter does not exist. If it possesses no electric charge, it possesses no mass. No mass means no attraction. E=mc^2. The electric force attracts just fine without gravities help.
MIT Physics Demo -- Forces on a Current-Carrying Wire - YouTube
Being 10^39 times stronger than the gravitational force, it is easy to see how a small electric force in plasma could easily explain galactic rotation curves, no Fairie Dust needed. Especially when 99% of the universe is made of plasma, the density of which in most places is far too small for the gravitational force to have any effect. But plasma is highly conductive and responds strongly to EM fields.
Likewise the electrical force ignores gravity. One does not need to place the coffee pot below the outlet for it to work.
Which is also why no gravitational model exists for the atom, only collections of atoms which have balanced magnetic and electric fields.
No, we understand a great deal about the process. Like I said, the math works perfectly to predict and describe charged-particle interactions.
Yes it does, and even describes planetary orbits.
Charged Particle in a Magnetic Field
You're right, what you said is a non-sequitur. The mere fact that we understand *a lot* doesn't mean we understand *everything.* We've long since discarded the notion that we can perfectly understand everything with no need to research further.
About the best answer anyone is going to get on charge is:
I have no clue where you're getting this idea that neutrons repel each other via electrical repulsion. Have you never heard of a neutron star?
Yes Fairie Dust neutron stars, when free neutrons not bound with a proton immediately decay in less than 18 minutes. But oh, they want entire stars to be made of neutronium, a "hypothesized" element never ever detected, because you can't even get two neutrons to be stable together.
That is the problem, we have given up trying to explain things, and merely take them on faith. And there is no place for faith in science.
Two Neutrons at the Same Time: Discovery of Dineutron Decay | National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory (NSCL)
The ones with an excess of neutrons, decay in trillionths of a second.
"The resulting events clearly showed two neutrons travelling closely together – a dineutron – through the MoNA detector at the same time that a beryllium-14 nucleus was detected, giving direct evidence of the dineutron decay. In addition, the neutrons
were sure to have been emitted simultaneously because it requires more energy to emit one at a time, making the dineutron decay the preferred mode."
So we will pretend two were emitted at the same time, and happened to travel in the same direction for a trillionth of a second, and from this we will deduce a new element.
Physics - Nuclei Emit Paired-up Neutrons
"A neutron-only nucleus is considered
physically impossible, but researchers have now seen a short-lived neutron pairing as a product of nuclear decay."
No, they observed what appears to be two neutrons traveling in the same direction simultaneously. There is not one shred of evidence that they were bound together to form an element. Anymore than two photons traveling together or two electrons in an electron beam or two protons in an proton beam makes a new element. Pure conjecture, just as your stars made up of all neutrons are pure conjecture.