Yes no mechanism for this very true. I still think the picture is consistent assuming an unknown mechanism. I understand this is non science territory.
Well I am glad you understand that, but what is the point of introducing “an unknown mechanism” to make something consistent with observations when known mechanisms will suffice?
How do you know it isn’t a displacement like waves?
In a sense we don’t, did you read the link about the
path integral? However the experimental evidence that supports the path integral means that we can not limit the electron to any one path (or history) even one with a wavelike displacement, but must consider all possible paths (or histories). Given the implications of the path integral a wave like displacement path, due to virtual interactions, is certainly a possibility, but it is only the probability of those interactions that need to be considered a not any one path (or history). We can however assert, based on the success of the path integral, that an electron does not have to travel in a path with “displacement like waves”.
If I recall correctly according to
Quantum electrodynamics an electron in an atom might be considered to recoil towards the nucleus upon absorbing a virtual photon and away from it upon emitting a virtual photon, a somewhat wavelike motion, but that would be a gross oversimplification. Also it would tend more to a classical interpretation of electrons in an atom (having a well defined position at any given time) and not to the quantum aspects that QED and modern physics is based upon.
As you say it is the probability of finding an electron in a position and, as I understand it, that position has a boundary defined by a constant h. Picture an electron oscillating perpendicular to travel such that the amplitude is constant and is less than the Planck Length. What we have then is an electron where we do not know the position exactly (variable due to oscillation) but it is in a boundary as defined by the amplitude.
Actually the
Compton wavelength is considered the fundamental limitation on measuring the position of a particle.
Again read the link on the
path integral and you might see that the boundary condition you suggest on a traveling electron is not applicable.
As a neutrino is a massive particle we can use the equations already used (OK mangled by me) in this thread to show momentum is conserved, am I right?
Your question was…
2) Neutrinos change flavour as they travel how is momentum conserved?
and momentum is conserved by those combined mass and flavor states. If a theory of Neutrino flavor oscillations was not consistent with the conservation of momentum I doubt it would be taken seriously, without substantial definitive experimental evidence.