How would Einstein explain this? (Or how do you explain this)

Hey Jon, perhaps I can give a better explanation if that is what you were looking for:

As outlined by the French physicist Louis de Broglie in 1923 (after Einstein had made the same assumption regarding light), waves and particles are dual aspects of the same phenomena: every particle behaves like a wave, and every wave can be associated to a particle. One can talk of energy and mass, or one can talk of frequency and wavelength. The two descriptions are equivalent, or, better, one complements the other.

The character of this relationship was defined in 1925 by Werner Heisenberg in Germany and Erwin Schroedinger in Austria. Both devised equations that replaced the equations of Newton's physics, but both equations had unpleasant consequences: Heisenberg's equations implied that the result of a physical experiment depends on the order in which the calculations were performed, and Schroedinger's equations implied that each particle could only really be considered a wave. In 1926 Max Born realized the implications of the wave-particle duality: the wave associated to a particle turns out to be a wave of probabilities, in order to account for the alternative possibilities that open up for the future of a particle. The state of a particle is described by a "wave function" which summarizes (and superposes) all the alternatives and their probabilities. The wave function contains all the information there is about the particle (or, in general, about a system). It contains the answers to all the questions that can be asked about the particle.

The reason this is a "wave" of probabilities and not just a set of probabilities is that the equation devised by Schroedinger to describe it is the equation of an electromagnetic wave.
Schroedinger's equation describes how this wave function evolves in time, and is therefore the quantum equivalent of Hamilton's equations. The Schroedinger equation fixes, deterministically, the temporal development of the state of the universe. But at every point in time the wave function describes a set of possibilities, not just one actuality. The particle’s current state is actually to be thought of as a "superposition" of all those alternatives that are made possible by its wavelike behavior. A particle's current state is, therefore, a number of states: one can view the particle as being in all of those states at the same time. This is a direct consequence of a particle not being just a particle but being also a wave.

As Born phrased it, the motion of particles follows the law of probabilities, but the probability itself follows the law of causality.
In 1927 Bohr stated the ultimate paradox of the wave-particle duality: everything is both particle and wave, but one must choose whether to measure one or the other aspect of nature, and then stick to it. If you try to mix the two, you run into contradictions.

In classical Physics, a quantity (such as the position or the mass) is both an attribute of the state of the system and an observable (a quantity that can be measured by an observer). Quantum Theory makes a sharp distinction between states and observables. If the system is in a given state, an observable can assume a range of values (so called "eigenvalues"), each one with a given probability. The evolution over time of a system can be viewed as due (according to Heisenberg) to time evolution of the observables or (according to Schroedinger) to time evolution of the states.

An observer can measure at the same time only observables, which are compatible. If the observables are not compatible, they stand in a relation of mutual indeterminacy: the more accurate a measurement of the one, the less accurate the measurement of the other. Position and momentum are, for example, incompatible. This is a direct consequence of the wave-particle dualism: only one of the two natures is "visible" at each time. One can choose which one to observe (whether the particle, that has a position, or the wave, that has a momentum), but cannot observe both aspects at the same time.

Precisely, Heisenberg’s famous "uncertainty principle" states that there is a limit to the precision with which we can measure, at the same time, the momentum and the position of a particle. If one measures the momentum, then it cannot measure the position, and vice-versa. This is actually a direct consequence of Einstein's equation that related the wavelength and the momentum (or the frequency and the energy) of a light wave: if coordinates (wavelength) and momentum are related, they are no longer independent quantities. Einstein never believed in this principle, but he was indirectly the one who discovered it.

The wave function contains the answers to all the questions that can be asked about a system, but not all those questions can be asked simultaneously. If they are asked simultaneously, the replies will not be precise.

The degree of uncertainty is proportional to the Planck constant. This implies that there is a limit to how small a physical system can be, because, below a quantity proportional to the Planck constant and called "Planck length", the physical laws of Quantum Theory stop working altogether. The Planck scale (10^-33 cm, i.e. the shortest possible length, and 10^-43 sec, i.e. the time it takes for a light beam to cross the Planck length, i.e. the shortest possible time tick) is the scale at which space-time is no longer a continuum but becomes a grid of events separated by the Planck distance. What happens within a single cell of the grid, is beyond the comprehension of Physics. As the American physicist John Wheeler suggested in the 1950s, even the very notions of space and time stop making sense in this "quantum foam".

Given the above, it is my contention that thought, (which can be measured by waves) directly affect quarks which in turn effect particles which in turn effect solid matter and the environment. Is this the explanation you were looking for?

Jon, I don't NEED to show anything. I'm not trying or even care to persuade anybody here to accept what I know in my soul to be true. I'm working on formulas to articulate such an extensive topic but I am in process and have only been working on it for a year. I don't require fomulas to believe. I know, and then the formula is created.

I responded to RAVEN's question initially. I thought it absurd to read that Sam did not see any connection between science and beauty (Einstein obviously did). I don't want to fight, debate, or prove anything to you whatsoever.

Wow- I'm really blown away that you can read an article and not see that it is discussing MUCH more than light. It's in black and white and you summerize it as "Light"- read again, Sam. (Somehow I believe this is related to your inability to see how everything is connected)

It's obvious that neither side is going to be convinced and that's ok. I think the important thing is that there was a discussion. Period.

Hi Sam,

I hate to burst your bubble, but there is nothing objective about science.

The inherent connection between beauty, science, and art is language.

We should reflect on the nature of language.

What is a concept? How is a concept formed? How do we express it? Where is the objective reality in the concept? Etc.

Personally, I believe Einstein's special theory of relativity reveals something about the mechanism of the mind, and nothing about what is "out there" in the universe.

It speaks to me about the limitations of language, mathematical or otherwise. Somehow it exposes the dualistic workings of the mind... and how we need to move beyond it in order to experience reality.

Swami Sivananda put it in much simpler language, "drown yourself in Atman." Hey, I like the idea anyway. :)

Peace,
Denny