There are wavepacket objects that can be knocked around. I forget, but I think the word is soliton, or something similar, a single wave-hump, or a wavehump plus some fast decaying amplitude fluctuations a couple wavelengths away, that travels, as if it were a particle. In order to understand quantum "particles" I think they need to delve into the math of ping pong-ing macroscopic single hump wave "particles" around - how they interact with each other, how to get a bounce out of each. Another thing that acts weird, as if it were a particle, but it's distributed, is a macroscopic vortex. Once you build up the intuition about these macroscopic "particles" that are simply a phenomenon of their medium - be it two vortices or two wave humps in macroscopic air or water, or quantum particles in the "ether" of vacuum - (I'm gonna leave this sentence hanging like this.) The math is really complicated with interacting vortices that bounce off each other, or wave solitons that bounce off each other, and conserve the terms of momentum, mv, energy, mv2, and I think angular momentum. What else?
A neutron having a magnetic moment means it has internal charge separation, and the sum of the internal charges is zero, but the "currents" of different charges are separated, such as the positive charges are flow in a small radius donut in the center, and the negative charges in a large radius donut around the small donut, or even if in the same donut (as in a copper donut wire you have both the positive and negative flowing in the same donut) at least at a different speeds relative to each other. If there are acually two donuts, not just one, then these two internal donuts may not be in the same plane, but say vertical to each other, and then the vector sum of the magnetic moments may act a bit more weird, if you can shift the relative plane of each donut differently with an externally applied magnetic field. It would be nice to know which ones are the magnetic field generators in a neutron relative to the lab's velocity taken as zero. In a copper wire we know it's the negative charge that flows, and the positive sits still. Is there a way to tell which one sits still inside a neutron, or what the speeds are? I think artifacts of such considerations might shed light on the devil is in the details of how they performed the experiment and what they actually measured and what actually happened, and it may turn out not to be a separation of the property of the wave from the wave, but some measurement artifact misunderstanding. And by the way I don't believe in the uncertainty principle, you could probably come up with a Schroedinger wave equation or Heisenberg particle matrix for macroscopic vortices or wave solitons, and then could take it to lower scales. Also Dirac's electron-positron pair rising out of pure vacuum is like a vortex and antivortex, or soliton and antisoliton arising out of the "ether" or medium of pure vacuum. And by the way some strange behavior of this "ether" might be deduced in how light travels in the Michelson Moreley experiment, and by the beding of starlight by gravity during a solar eclipse. By the way does light bend equally based on how its polarized vs. the gravitational field vector? A recent issue with a supernova explosion nearby showing two different neutrino peaks followed by a light peak that then stayed on continuously, brought up the idea that the difference in neutrinos might be polarization, as in birefringence in an anisotropic medium - which by the way splits a beam into two, not a spread spectrum like the prizm does with the rainbow. So this concept of ether was killed dead and deemed superfluous, but as all quantum phenomena are wave phenomena, and we can best understand waves by assuming a uniform medium that has properties x, y, z, w, etc., (gimme 19 parameters and I can fit an elephant with a mathematical curve, give me 20 and I can fit the tail too with high accuracy.) The less parameters you need the better, and if you can beat the 26 parameter string theory, with say explaining as much as it does with 22 parameters, that's a good achievement. In modeling the world you're approximating reality without ever truly describing it, as in Newtonian mechanics is pretty accurate, but the relativity adds extra precision under certain conditions, while maintaining backward compatibility, and even Einstein said that something else is gonna come around and approximate or model reality more accurately than relativity theory, but still maintaining the correspondence principles to it where relativity theory is accurate. That's why you keep your eyeballs open in experiment. Every theory is a mere theory, and we bow before the facts of experiment like God is speaking to us through them, we put the self away, and respect the external "dream", as in Plato's allegory of the cave, or Descartes "I think therefore I am sure about that, but I cannot trust the senses, I might be all dreaming this stuff, or watching a magician play tricks with my senses" to which Hume swings his wrecking ball of "but all your knowledge past that comes through the senses" and you have nothing better to trust as a source of knowledge and truth. And the Pope says, yeah, you do, it's called divine revelation, that does not come from experiment. You cannot trust any experiment about neutrons, you need to close your eyes and wait for the divine revelation to arrive about them. So anyway, we're dreaming the dream with Hume's trusting the untrustworthy senses like our eyeballs and digital measuring equipment, while we wait for the divine revelation, and in absence of that, we bow to the phenomena of the dream, the experimental resuts of the dream we all dream, and call reality. There is no reality, no materialism. There is only mind, and spirituality. That's one of the core hindu teachings. It's funny how quantum stuff always flirts with eastern religion's now you see it, now you don't, it's not yes or no, yin or yang, black or white, but both yes and no at the same time, called grey. A neutron itself, like an atom, is a mix of negative charge light yin and positive charge heavy yang, but they don't go roundabout at the same speed. Gotta be. How else can you usefully model it. It's not only how close a model is to reality that matters, but how terse it is, how mentally economic, as if it has 243,423,356,432,324,001 parameters very accurately describing everything in the world, in the dream, it's useless to my mind, because I'm simple minded, stupid, and need 3 parameter descriptions and generalizations, such as conservation of energy, momentum and angular momentum. That's not too many parameters to keep in my head while trying to approximate and predict the reality around me with my mind. But sometimes something gotta give, and you gotta throw in more parameters, when trying to describe how vacuum behaves as ether whose various wave-states correspond to the different elementary particles, plus it obeys the Michelson-Moreley experiment, and also the gravity bend. There may be such a thing as absolute time in the Newtonians sense, and our clocks simply tick slower up on the tv satellites simply because they are made up of electromagnetic stuff objects that each individually obey the Michelson Moreley experiments and Lorentz contractions, including the general relativity acceleration contractions correspondence principle of gravity contractions, and they just tick faster simply because of that, while time goes on with the same speed, unrelenting, absolute,everywhere. There is no such thing as time, it's an invention, a parameter to describe my reality. In fact I wonder if extraterrestrial intelliget beings would all have the same concept of time, as we do. Is it flexible in their modeling of the world, or ridig and absolute. It doesn't really matter which way it is, as long as you force the parameters to fit the equations. It's like describing a curve f(x) with cartesian x, y series of points, where wave things like sine become complicated to describe, with many terms in the infinite expansion of the Taylor series, or describe everything with Fourier series, where simple particle humps become complicated many term things, but a steady sinewave is a single parameter simple object. And when you have to come from the wave perspective, starting with the unintuitive Fourier series description may be more efficient. I don't know how Fourier series apply to vortices, vortices might have their own series to simpy describe their behavior, and then the vacuum of quantum mechanics, with dielectric a permittivity greater than zero, may have its own, quantum series to simply describe its behavior, and you could describe non-wave, non-quantum things with it too, just like you can describe a square wave pulse with Fourier series, in a bend over backward way, by forcing it on with parameters. What is sought is a model that's usefully low on parameters, but you have to use as many as you have to. Einstein said a scientific explanation should be as simple as possible, but not simpler. We all want simple, but don't get stuck at too simple that won't fit. There is no way to describe an elephant with a curve with 2 parameters. Same way, describing the zoo or all the elementary particle wave-states of vacuum may need more than 2 parameters. I'm too dumb for such math, so I hope these guys get something useful for me to mentally consume, it sees like they need ideas and I try to help, and I hope they can gimme something better than, with less than 26 parameter string theory. Pretty please?