Also, bear in mind that a neutron is definitely not a fundamental particle. It is a merging of a proton and an electron and some extra mass (I would describe the extra mass as quantum particle mass, which you might also think of as photonic mass. Current theory describes it along the lines of a neutrino and some "binding energy".). Hanging out with protons and other neutrons in a nucleus keeps the neutron "stable". Except in "badly designed" nuclei where there are too many neutrons and seemingly not enough love to go around - so the unloved neutron on the edge of town decays. This produces an uppity electron, which demands to be referred to as a "beta particle" during the decay process.
Outside of proton influence, neutrons decay quite rapidly (a maximum of just under fifteen minutes, but the average decay time is a few minutes). We might therefore deduce that the electron and proton are always having a bit of a tussle, one might presume caused by, or at least aided by, outside influences. Given that a neutron is a fundamentally unhappy place to be, we should expect some amount of dynamic behaviour prior to decay. Since there is no way to observe this process we are left to theory and speculation. In fact, bombarding neutrons with photons is only going to make matters worse (as Mr Heisenberg and the Copenhagen posse so "helpfully" pointed out). Donald Scott is one of my heroes so it pains me to criticise a quote from him, but I wonder exactly how were these neutrons captured and brought to rest next to each other, so that the "flying apart" process could be observed. However, even without such a spontaneous dynamic mutual loathing, the concept of stable neutronium flies squarely in the face of what meagre knowledge we have of neutrons and all subatomic dynamics.