Abraham Pais, Review Modern Physics 51, p863 (1979).指以互補原理與測不準關係為基礎的量子力學非決定論之統計解釋.這些觀點主要是Bohr 與 Heisenberg 在 Copenhagen 提出來的,後來逐漸被 Born, Dirac, Pauli 等等許多物理學家所接受.他們被人們稱為 Copenhagen 學派,所以他們對量子力學的解釋也就被稱為 Copenhagen 解釋.關於 Bohr 對 Einstein 光盒的分析,可見 Stephen Gasiorowicz, Quantum Physics, p37.A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, N. Rosen, Physical Review 47, p777-780 (15 May 1935).L. Rosenfeld in Niels Bohr, His Life and Work as Seen by His Friends and Colleagues, S. Rozental, ed., (1967) p114-136.Niels Bohr, Physical Review 48, p696 (15 Oct 1935).當然,如果我們堅持只有在兩個物理量能夠同時被測量時才認為它們同時是實在的,那我們未必會得到 EPR 的結論.但是,EPR 反駁道,這將使得兩個不對易的物理量那一個能被認為是實在的決定於我們將採取何種測量.一個合理的理論不該是如此的.見註 4,p780.J. Bell: "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox" Physics I #3, p195 (1964).後來 Bell 及其後繼者都曾改進並推廣這個不等式.因此所謂 Bell 不等式並非單一一個不等式,而是此類不等式的通稱.推導這個公式需要量子力學的角動量理論.請參考任何一本量子力學的專書.如 J.J.Sakurai, Modern Quantum Mechanics, p165-168.Physical Review Letter 23, p880-884 (1969).吳健雄, L.R.Kasday, J.D.Ullman, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 15, p586 (1970); Nuovo Cim. 25, p633-661 (1975).G.Faraci, S.Gutkowski, S.Notarrigo, A.R.Pennisi, Lett. Nuovo Cim. 9, p607-611 (1974).A.R.Wilson, J.Lowe, D.K.Butt, J. Phys. G; Nucl. Phys. 2, p613-624 (1976).M.Bruno, M.d'Agostino, C.Maroni, Nuovo Cim. 40, p142-154 (1977).M.Lamehi-Rachti, W.Mittig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 14, p2453-2554 (1976).S.J.Freeclman, J.F.Clauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, p938-941 (1972).R.A.Holt, F.M.Pipkin, Preprint Harvard University (1973).J.F.Clauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, p1223-1226 (1976). Clauser 在 1976 年這個實驗是重複 1973 年Holt 和 Pipkin 的方式(見註18),而得到和 Holt 及 Pipkin 相同的結果(違背量子力學).但是 Clauser 發現在實驗裝置中一個裝有電子槍和汞蒸氣的Pyrex 玻璃球(一種耐熱玻璃)壁上有不正常的應力.在修正此項錯誤之後 Clauser 得到了符合量子力學的結果.E.S.Fry, R.C.Thompson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, p465-468 (1976).A.Aspect, P.Grangier, G.Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, p91-94 (1982).A.Aspect, J.Palibard, G.Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, p1804-1807 (1982).N.David Mermin, Physics Today April 1985, p41.Rechard P. Feynman, Simulating Physics with Computers, Int. J. Theo. Phys. 21, p471 (1982). Mermin 將 Feynman 這段評注改寫成詩歌的形式,十分有趣: We have always had a great deal of difficulty understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents. At least I do, because I'm an old enough man that I haven't got to the point that this stuff is obvious to me Okay, I still get nervous with it... You know how it always is, every new idea, it takes a generation or two until it becomes obvious that there's no real problem I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there's no real problem, but I'm not sure there's no real problem.