The strong force is several million times stronger between quarks inside nucleons than the electromagnetic force is between charged particles. In fact if you apply enough energy to a nucleon to knock out a "free quark" the excess energy is enough to create a shower of quark-antiquark pairs that are attracted to the "free quark" and to each other resulting in a shower of ordinary nucleons and no free quarks.
In the ordinary sense of the word ... No, because you can't even have free quarks at temperatures below about 2,000,000,000,000 K, where they exist with other quarks and gluons in a kind of plasma or "soup". You can figuratively regard quarks below that temperature as being "frozen" (bound with other quarks) into hadrons.
1
Protons and neutrons are in atomic nuclei, while electrons are located outside atomic nuclei in various probabilities of energetically favored states. Quarks are the fundamental particles that compose the hadron family of particles, of which protons and neutrons are members. Thus, you better believe quarks are found in atomic nuclei! In fact, because of the way the strong nuclear force acts on quarks, they can never be found on their own they are not found on their own at low energies but it is possible that they can become free at extremely high energies, as is the case in the hypothetical quark-gluon plasma. As we can observe them, however, they're always in protons and neutrons (or the various other hadrons).
Yes, free electrons can collide with atoms.
Metals have "free" electrons, the free electrons in metals help to transfer heat together with the vibrating atoms.
Actually quarks can exist freely.
Protons and neutrons are found in the nucleus. While these are theoretically composed of quarks (conversely even more massive particles), quarks do not exist in a free state so are not "fundamental particles" by definition.
because they are too reactive to exist on their own, they bond with other elements in nature to satisfy their need for electrons
1
In the ordinary sense of the word ... No, because you can't even have free quarks at temperatures below about 2,000,000,000,000 K, where they exist with other quarks and gluons in a kind of plasma or "soup". You can figuratively regard quarks below that temperature as being "frozen" (bound with other quarks) into hadrons.
Yes, it does not exist free in nature.
Quarks, which are fundamental particles, all "suffer" from an extension of one of their basic characteristics (color) called color confinement, and this has a consequence. Quarks are never found free in space anywhere outside a hadron (like a proton or neutron) which they make up. Quarks, which are the bulding blocks of hardons, simply cannot exist outside the particles in which they are those building blocks. Links can be found below for more information.
Question as posed makes no sense. Free? In nature? If so, no.
Yes, becasue there is nothing that makes them. That is as small as it gets! Although never experimental observed, quarks are the building blocks within hadrons such as protons and neutrons. Their size is speculative, but they are clearly smaller than a hadron. Neutrinos have far less mass than even electrons, and thus could be considered "smaller."
not found free in nature they exist as separate diatomic molecules they produce salts known as halides
None. Francium is highly reactive, and highly radioactive. It doesn't exist free in nature.
Does free will exist? (If so, what is its nature?)Does God exist?Can we know anihytng?What is the nature of the mind (i.e. is it physical? Non-physical, but interactive? non-physical, and non-interactive?)What does the question What is the meaning of life? mean? (N.B. Not What is the answer? )