- 666

- 2

## Main Question or Discussion Point

We are discussing the Demystifier's paper "Quantum mechanics: myths and facts". http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0609163

Myth 1 is discussed here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=229497

The myth 1 thread is still alive but, personally, I would like to press on. I will be offline for most of the month of June and want to get through all these, if possible.

The topic is the claim that the common statement that time and energy are related by an uncertainty relation similar to that for position and momentum is a myth. By myths we mean widely repeated statements which, true or false, are not something we can validly assert given our current understanding.

I have a preliminary question. I have seen the statement that the energy operator is the hamiltonian and not [tex]i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}[/tex]. That is not how I would put it, though I am quite ready to admit I know little about it. But I would have supposed that [tex]i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}[/tex] really is the energy operator [tex]E[/tex] and that the condition

[tex]H|\psi\rangle = i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}|\psi\rangle [/tex]

is a constraint of sorts, telling us a relation between the energy and the other variables which physical systems must satisfy.

Could someone else elaborate on the relationship between E and H?

Myth 1 is discussed here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=229497

The myth 1 thread is still alive but, personally, I would like to press on. I will be offline for most of the month of June and want to get through all these, if possible.

**In QM, there is a time-energy uncertainty relation**The topic is the claim that the common statement that time and energy are related by an uncertainty relation similar to that for position and momentum is a myth. By myths we mean widely repeated statements which, true or false, are not something we can validly assert given our current understanding.

I have a preliminary question. I have seen the statement that the energy operator is the hamiltonian and not [tex]i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}[/tex]. That is not how I would put it, though I am quite ready to admit I know little about it. But I would have supposed that [tex]i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}[/tex] really is the energy operator [tex]E[/tex] and that the condition

[tex]H|\psi\rangle = i\hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}|\psi\rangle [/tex]

is a constraint of sorts, telling us a relation between the energy and the other variables which physical systems must satisfy.

Could someone else elaborate on the relationship between E and H?