Bohm and Aharonov interpreted the experiment of Wu and Shaknov as an empirical evidence of the paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. Peres and Singer tried to deny their interpretation, but they were refuted by the former. It is shown that their reasoning for the interpretation is still unsatisfactory. in a well-known article,!> Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (hereafter referred to as EPR) pointed out a paradoxical feature concerning the 'completeness' of the current quantum mechanics. Bohm and Aharonov2> (hereafter referred to as BA) formulated the above paradox of EPR, as follows: One considers a pair of spin one-half particles formed somehow in the total spin singlet state and moving freely in opposite directions. Measurement can be made, say by a Stern-Gerlach magnet, on any desired component of the spin cr1 of the particle 1. Suppose that the particle 2 is so remote from the particle 1 that the process of measurement on the latter does not disturb the former. If measurement of (J1z, say, yields the value + 1 or -1, then it can immediately be concluded that (J2z = -1 or + 1, respectively, because of the conservation of the total spin. Thus any desired component of cr2 can be predicted with certainty without in any way disturbing the particle 2. According to EPR all the three independent components of cr2 must be specified simultaneously in a 'complete' theory. Quantum mechanics cannot be a complete theory, because only one component can be specified by the wave function. • Such quantities, components of cr2 for example, as can be predicted with certainty without in any way disturbing the relevant system are called by EPR 'elements of physical reality'.*> EPR required that a 'complete' theory should specify all the elements of physical reality. By the process of the above gedanken experiment only one component of cr2 of each particle 2 can be predicted. The simultaneity of the predictions of all components of cr2 cannot be expected. It may seem at first sight that for each particle only one component of cr2 is the element of physical reality. Nevertheless EPR imposed on a complete theory the simultaneity of the specifica tions of all components of cr2 of each particle. This imposition is based on the