Here's what I'm thinking, where am I wrong? (I should probably ask the opposite.)

The virtual particle isn't an actual particle, but rather a mathematical tool to describe a fluctuation of the quantum field in response to the interaction of particles.

Assuming this is the case, is the reason we are able to model these interactions with the addition of the virtual particle because the properties of the field... hmm, i'm not sure how to say this part, something analogous to using a virtual musical note if the field is a piano. The piano has the capability to play these notes so it would seem natural to model musical transitions using a virtual note which corresponds to one the available keys.

On a fundamental level are the real particles an extension of this, but in a way we can directly measure? I'm thinking of a comparison to the explanation for why electrons can only exist at particular levels. While the field could be in various states, it manifests itself in specific states conducive to stability. I think i'm trying to cover probability without directly stating it. Even when we detect a particle, can we say we actually did or that we have determined it is very probable that there could be one in that area, or that the probability is high enough that it offers stability? (i'm trying not to make that an uncertainty principle question but i may not be able to avoid it). I get the feeling that there doesn't seem to be a fine line between virtual and real particles, despite our ability to detect the latter.

I feel like my knowledge is more focused on particles and my understanding of fields is lacking. For instance, I'm struggling to really process what charge is. I'm trying to see past the definitions of positive and negative, as I know the terms could be switched around and it wouldn't make a difference. I know that the elementary charge is considered a quanta but charge itself isn't a unit on its own, in the sense that there isn't free charge, it has to be a property of a particle, correct? It feels more like an emergent property of the field as opposed to a force mediated by propagators (i'm pretty sure that is the case but sometimes it sounds like that doesn't quite describe it). For some reason the quantization of charge threw me off here, I'm thinking it shouldn't have but something about it is bugging me. Thinking about it again it's only quantized in the sense that it represents the charge of a single proton, which just makes it easier to work with, it doesn't describe charge as some unit on it's own.

As I'm trying to think more I'm getting that feeling where my brain is asking ten questions at once which usually means I've wandered too far into the unknown to ask a semi-relevant question. I feel like I'm missing an information bridge in here somewhere. I searched and found a few threads which addressed charge in more detail, I will read those so don't feel like you have to address that part. I'm leaving it in there as an example for where my understanding breaks down. I feel like I just spit out a jumble of random misunderstandings, sorry about that. Thank you for your time and effort.