Quantum Mechanics: Born's 'Probability Waves' Interpretation of QT (1928)

Born (1928) was the first to discover (by chance and with no theoretical foundation) that the square of the quantum wave equations (which is actually the Wave-Density) could be used to predict the probability of where the particle would be found. Since it was impossible for both the waves and the particles to be real entities, it became customary to regard the waves as unreal probability waves and to maintain the belief in the 'real' particle. Unfortunately (profoundly) this maintained the belief in the particle/wave duality, in a new form where the 'quantum' scalar standing waves had become 'probability waves' for the 'real' particle.
Albert Einstein unfortunately agreed with this probability wave interpretation, as he believed in continuous force fields (not in waves or particles) thus to him it was sensible that the waves were not real, and were mere descriptions of probabilities. He writes;

On the basis of quantum theory there was obtained a surprisingly good representation of an immense variety of facts which otherwise appeared entirely incomprehensible. But on one point, curiously enough, there was failure: it proved impossible to associate with these Schrodinger waves definite motions of the mass points - and that, after all, had been the original purpose of the whole construction. The difficulty appeared insurmountable until it was overcome by Born in a way as simple as it was unexpected. The de Broglie-Schrodinger wave fields were not to be interpreted as a mathematical description of how an event actually takes place in time and space, though, of course, they have reference to such an event. Rather they are a mathematical description of what we can actually know about the system. They serve only to make statistical statements and predictions of the results of all measurements which we can carry out upon the system. (Albert Einstein, 1940)
It seems to be clear, therefore, that Born's statistical interpretation of quantum theory is the only possible one. The wave function does not in any way describe a state which could be that of a single system; it relates rather to many systems, to an 'ensemble of systems' in the sense of statistical mechanics. (Albert Einstein, 1936)

Albert Einstein is correct in one sense, mistaken in another. It is true that matter is intimately interconnected to all the other matter in the universe by the Spherical In and Out-Waves, something quantum theory discovered but never correctly understood.
This has become known as quantum entanglement and relates to the famous experiment posed by Albert Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) (see Section 1.7 for an explanation of this experiment) and when later technology allowed its experimental testing, it confirmed quantum theory's entanglement. Albert Einstein assumed this interconnectedness was due to the spherical spatially extended field structure of matter, instead, it is due to the interaction of the spherical spatially extended Standing Waves of matter with other matter's Wave-Centers distant in Space. Explaining this Standing Wave interaction of matter with other matter in the Space around it (action-at-a-distance) is largely the purpose of this Article and is one of the great powers of the Metaphysics of Space and Motion and the Spherical Wave Structure of Matter.

Nonetheless, Albert Einstein was very close to the truth. He realised that because matter is spherically spatially extended we must give up the idea of complete localization and knowledge of the 'particle' in a theoretical model. For the particle is nothing but the Wave-Center of a Spherical Standing Wave, and thus can never be isolated as an entity in itself, but is dependent on its interactions with all the other Matter in the Universe. And it is this lack of knowledge of the system as a whole that is the ultimate cause of the uncertainty and resultant probability inherent in Quantum Theory.

Thus the last and most successful creation of theoretical physics, namely quantum mechanics (QM), differs fundamentally from both Newton's mechanics, and Maxwell's e-m field. For the quantities which figure in QM's laws make no claim to describe physical reality itself, but only probabilities of the occurrence of a physical reality that we have in view. (Albert Einstein, 1931)
I cannot but confess that I attach only a transitory importance to this interpretation. I still believe in the possibility of a model of reality - that is to say, of a theory which represents things themselves and not merely the probability of their occurrence. On the other hand, it seems to me certain that we must give up the idea of complete localization of the particle in a theoretical model. This seems to me the permanent upshot of Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty. (Albert Einstein, 1934)

Albert Einstein believed that Reality could be represented by spherical force fields, that reality was not founded on chance (as Bohr and Heisenberg argued) but on necessary connections between things (thus his comment 'God does not play dice'!). He was largely correct, Matter is necessarily connected due to the Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter, but due to lack of knowledge of the system as a whole (the Universe), and the fact that it is impossible to determine an Infinite system (of which our finite spherical universe is a part - see Article on Cosmology), then this gives rise to the chance and uncertainty found in Quantum Theory.

The Spirit and Flesh World Religion and Spirituality Online Library: uniting seemingly opposed ideologies and vibrations into the true, pristine harmony of cosmic oneness.