Remember this little rule from High School physics or chemistry class?请记住这个小规则从高中物理或化学课堂？ Usually taught as: No two electrons can occupy the same quantum states at the same time.通常教的：没有两个电子可以占用相同的量子态在同一时间。 Or, more generally, for those of us who went to school beyond the High School level: No two identical Fermions may occupy the same quantum state simultaneously.或更一般地说，对于我们这些谁去上学超出高中水平：没有两个相同的费米子可能占据相同的量子态同时进行。
Have you ever asked WHY this is so?你有没有问这是为什么呢？ Do you have an intuitive way of explaining the underlying cause for the above rule to your 12 year old kid, say?你有一个直观的解释方式的根本原因为上述规则，你12岁的孩子，说什么？ Not to worry.不用担心。 At the time of this writing no one has such an intuitive and fundamental explanation.在编写本文件时没有人有这样一个直观的和基本的解释。 I recall reading Feynman’s lectures on physics and the dude himself admitting that because he could not come up with a simple and intuitive explanation for the Pauli Exclusion Principle he probably does not really understand it very well.我记得读费曼讲物理和花花公子本人承认，因为他无法拿出一个简单直观的解释泡利不相容原理，他可能并不真正理解非常好。 Without this rule that is taught to all students of chemistry and physics without further explanation (and don’t give me the “wave-function for fermions are anti-symmetric” stuff; that really is just re-stating the same assumptions using different words) it’s impossible to understand anything as far as atoms or nuclei are concerned.如果没有这种规则，是教所有学生的化学和物理没有进一步解释（不给我的“波函数的费米子是反对称”的东西，这实在是再述同样的假设使用不同的字）这是不可能的，了解什么尽可能原子或原子核的问题。 I personally always hated this rule, because it was introduced ad hoc, without any explanation.我个人一向痛恨这一规则，因为它介绍了临时性的，没有任何解释。 Now I know that there is none, so far.现在我知道，有没有，到目前为止。
Anyway, I was reminded of this long forgotten little fact while browsing the web yesterday and stumbling upon a post on Wolfgang Pauli that has him ranked as the #10 most important physicist of all times.不管怎样，我想起这一点早已被人遗忘的事实，而浏览网页昨天和障碍时后对沃尔夫冈泡利有他列为＃ 10最重要的物理学家的所有时间。
PS: Wolfgang Pauli himself writes on page 31 of his Noble Lecture dated December 13, 1946 that附注：沃尔夫冈泡利本人写的31页的讲座他的崇高月1946年12月13号这
Already in my original paper I stressed the circumstance that I was unable to早在我原来的文件我强调的情况下，我无法
give a logical reason for the exclusion principle or to deduce it from more给予一个合理的理由排斥原则或推断它从更
general assumptions.一般的假设。 I had always the feeling and I still have it today, that我一直觉得和我仍然有今天，这
this is a deficiency.这是一个缺陷。
