Originally Posted by benit13 Well... okay. Do you plan to publish rebuttals to Briggs' papers? If not... perhaps you should! 
The main reason is that I'm disabled due to a chronic illness, namely chronic pain from degenerative disk disease which ruins my concentration. However there's a section under my physics website for misconceptions. Perhaps I'll add this to it someday. But lately I've had a terrible time concentrating due to the pain and writing an article requires good concentration. Even when I'm able to get some concentration back I have much more worthy goals to attend to.
Besides, what is there to gain from doing so? There have been many people who have published a ton of literature on this exact subject which is 100% consistent with what I said, what's observed in nature and how its currently described in the QM texts being used to teach QM at places like MIT. So why would I bother? You should realize that its not uncommon for articles to be published in journals which are quite incorrect. Its well explained in the physics literature why there is no such thing as a "time operator." The author simply doesn't know what he's talking a out. Shame on the peer reviewers for being so ignorant on the subject.
See also:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/uncertainty.html
There's an energy operator in quantum mechanics, usually called the Hamiltonian and written H. But the problem is, there's no "time operator" in quantum mechanics! This makes people argue a lot about the timeenergy uncertainty relation  whether it exists, what it would mean if it did exist, and so on.

Here's a bit more on the subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
Scroll down to where it says
In nonrelativistic mechanics, time is privileged as an independent variable. Nevertheless, in 1945, L. I. Mandelshtam and I. E. Tamm derived a nonrelativistic time–energy uncertainty relation, as follows
For a quantum system in a nonstationary state ψ and an observable B represented by a selfadjoint operator B ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {B}}} {\hat {B}}, the following formula holds:
σ E σ B  d ⟨ B ^ ⟩ d t  ≥ ℏ 2 . {\displaystyle \sigma _{E}~{\frac {\sigma _{B}}{\left{\frac {\mathrm {d} \langle {\hat {B}}\rangle }{\mathrm {d} t}}\right}}\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}.} {\displaystyle \sigma _{E}~{\frac {\sigma _{B}}{\left{\frac {\mathrm {d} \langle {\hat {B}}\rangle }{\mathrm {d} t}}\right}}\geq {\frac {\hbar }{2}}.}where σE is the standard deviation of the energy operator (Hamiltonian) in the state ψ, σB stands for the standard deviation of B. Although the second factor in the lefthand side has dimension of time, it is different from the time parameter that enters the Schrödinger equation. It is a lifetime of the state ψ with respect to the observable B: In other words, this is the time interval (Δt) after which the expectation value ⟨ B ^ ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle {\hat {B}}\rangle } \langle {\hat {B}}\rangle changes appreciably.

I assume that you didn't read the article I referenced at the bottom on my webpage on the subject. Perhaps you should. See [i]Time as an Observable[/], by William Unruh at
http://arxiv.org/abs/quantph/9807058 The author is well known in physics. He's popular for the phenomena named after him, i.e. Unruh radiation.
The author, John Baez , is a well known authority in physics.
Instead of listening to me, why not simply read the literature itself and learn why I'm saying what I am? For example: go to
https://arxiv.org and do a search on the subject. Read the portions of the books I described.
I should point out that, at least in classical mechanics, the numerical value of the Hamiltonian is not always equal to the energy.