For the first question it is good to know the following observation:
Let $K:\color{red}{\Bbb Q_p}$ be an algebraic extension of fields.
Later edit: Above, it is important to work over $\Bbb Q_p$. (Initially it was $\Bbb Q$, which is deadly wrong. For instance, in case of an extension $\Bbb Q(\alpha):\Bbb Q$ where $f=\operatorname{Irr}_{\Bbb Q}$ splits into two or more factors over $\Bbb Q_p$ the tensor product $\Bbb Q(\alpha)\otimes_{\Bbb Q}\Bbb Q_p$ splits as a product of extensions of $\Bbb Q_p$. Each field component comes then with its own extensions, and the following applies for each such component.)
After passing to the Galois closure, we may and do assume it is a Galois extension.
Let $|\cdot|=|\cdot|_p$ be the $p$-adic norm on $\Bbb Q_p$. (So $p$ is a prime.) Then it has a unique extension to $K$ which is also a multiplicative norm. Moreover, Galois conjugated elements have the same $p$-adic norm, and thus if $f=x^n+a_1x^{n-1}+\dots+a_{n-1}x+a_n$ is the minimal polynomial of some algebraic number $\alpha\in K$, then
$$
\begin{aligned}
|\alpha|
&=(|\alpha|^n)^{1/n}
=\left(\prod_{\sigma\in\text{Gal}(K:\Bbb Q)} |\sigma\alpha|\right)^{1/n}
=\left|\prod_{\sigma\in\text{Gal}(K:\Bbb Q)} \sigma\alpha\right|^{1/n}
\\
&=|a_n|^{1/n}\ .
\end{aligned}
$$
This shows how to take the unique norm on $\Bbb Q_p(\alpha)$.
Now it can be that $f$ is no longer irreducible over $\Bbb Q_p$, this is also a point with interest for the second question, so let us give an example.
Consider the algebraic integer $\sqrt 3$ over $\Bbb Q_p$ with $p=11$. Note that $3$ is a quadratic residue modulo $11$, since $(\pm5)^2=25=3$ modulo $11$. The key word is now Hensel's Lemma. We need only the "cheap" version of it telling us that we can start with any of the two solutions $\pm 5$, and we will start with $5$, and improve it successively to have a solution modulo $11$, then modulo $11^2$, then modulo $11^3$, and so on. An example is shown using sage:
sage: R = Qp(11, prec=7)
sage: sqrt(R(3))
5 + 2*11 + 6*11^2 + 8*11^3 + 11^4 + 9*11^5 + 9*11^6 + O(11^7)
(One can use a higher precision to get a longer part from the series.)
Instead, one can also use the binomial theorem to get an other convergent series. For instance:
\begin{aligned}
3 &= 25 \cdot \frac{3}{25} = 25 \left( 1 - \underbrace{\frac{22}{25}}_{x} \right), \\
\sqrt{3} &= 5(1 - x)^{1/2} \\
&= 5 \left( 1 - \binom{1/2}{1} x + \binom{1/2}{2} x^2 - \binom{1/2}{3} x^3 + \dots \right).
\end{aligned}
and the series in the parentheses converges. To the same value. Sage check:
sage: s = sqrt(R(3))
sage: t = 5 * sum([binomial(1/2, k)*R(-22/25)^k for k in [0..10]])
sage: s == t
True
sage: s
5 + 2*11 + 6*11^2 + 8*11^3 + 11^4 + 9*11^5 + 9*11^6 + O(11^7)
sage: t
5 + 2*11 + 6*11^2 + 8*11^3 + 11^4 + 9*11^5 + 9*11^6 + O(11^7)
There are many examples of convergent series. (Above there is the binomial series.) The logarithmic and exponential series converge in a ball around zero. Over $\Bbb R$ the $\exp$ is a good friend for the convergence, but in characteristic $p$ the "denominators are bad". See also wiki/P-adic_exponential_function.
For these reasons, there is a "good wish" to have a p-adic world of (over)convergent "objects". And start an industry of analytic explorations as it was the case some centuries ago.