I'm a beginner at quantum mechanics and I was just wondering about: 1) How photons can interact with charged particles when they are uncharged themselves. Also in the same regard according to my (school) textbooks light is an electromagnetic wave. But it also says that photons are uncharged and light is made of (a stream?) photons. 2) If so, how can a polarizer (is that even the correct term?) work? I have this basic definition with me that the polarizer 'cuts' out a component of the electromagnetic field thereby forcing the beam to become 'polarized'. 3) Can polarization be explained in terms of photon interaction? 4) Can the wave nature and particle nature be explained in the way I see it? [Depending on the 'resolution'/depth/scale of view entities may be regarded as individual particles or 'strings' or waves depending on whether we are able to see characteristic repetitions of behavior/interaction with other entities. Sort of something like a worm under a microscope. It looks like a worm at one resolution and we can see it wriggling about (wave?) and at a higher resolution you can consider it a multiple of a fundamental unit of a 'quantized' unit (the unit being perhaps the striations on its body or perhaps the number of cells per unit volume at another resolution and so on).] 5) I know this might sound a bit stupid, but is the 'Many Worlds' thing something like a wave having 'secondary' wavelets? [Its impossible (?) for us to experience all possibilities of an event (and if the event is represented as a dot, then the possibilities may be represented as a wave traveling in an unique direction each). Each such wave(possibility) at every point of time may undergo splitting (due to the reason that every event may have n number of possible outcomes since I don't think anyone can exactly say that an even can have only a defined number of outcomes. The 'maybe' factor always adds a few more, or reduces a few) and each of the new wave from the 'splitting' is (supposed) to be a secondary wavelet.] If this were so, wouldn't support the reasoning that the universe had no beginning or end? I know this is not physics but more like philosophy but I see no distinction between the two except in terms of the spelling and the lack of mathematics in the latter. I'm very interested in learning quantum physics properly from scratch. Most unfortunately the books at my disposal are very unhelpful and wikipedia even worse. And I'm sorry if these questions have been asked before. Regards.