What do you think of fringe sciences

What objective criteria differentiate between valid science, fringe science and pseudoscience in physics?

A long time ago I was taught that the acceptance of a science must meet a number of simple criteria such that: Physics can only study phenomena that can be reproduced. A sudden flash of light that occurs only once cannot be investigated. Observations need to be matched by a mathematical model that can explain the facts observed and predict some others. At last, simplicity should be the thread that leads us in the dark.

As beautiful as these criteria are, they cannot be used to distinguish true science from folklore: QM, for example, does not meet the reproducibility criterion because it is impossible to know both position and moment. You can actually imagine a first experiment in which I measure position and a second experiment carried out on another particle made under the same conditions in which I measure momentum. If you think a little harder, it's likely possible to discard all of the above criteria with a long-established theory, be it QM, statistical physics or ...

I now think that we should extend the postulate that reality is not independent of the observer to: Reality is created by the observer. And that a physical theory that is to be accepted must be thought and accepted by a large number of minds.

This position may seem extreme, but consider, for example, the paradigm of the earth's movement around the sun. Before Galileo was convinced that the sun revolves around the earth, from Galileo's death until now, everyone is convinced that Galileo has proven that the earth revolves around the sun. What are the facts: It is a daily experiment to see the sun rise and set from the earth and waiting a whole year for the sun to rotate around our position. At the same time, Galileo, who is the father of the Galilean theory of relativity, made it clear that there is no such thing as an absolute reference. We can therefore doubt the words he is supposed to have uttered about the earth revolving around the sun (which makes us think that the sun is an absolute reference that is so much better than the geocentric reference). There was a turning point in history when a large number of minds deformed Galileo's theory and turned it into a new paradigm: the sun is an absolute reference point that is much more convenient to use. And from that point on, humanity firmly believes that the earth revolves around the sun.

Finally, what do you think of the experiments attempting to identify the interaction between spirit and matter? http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/

Ron Maimon

QM cannot be reproduced. "Not reproducible" means rumors like "I heard my aunt said she once saw a man levitate, how does it work?" It does not apply to carefully observed unique events like Supernova 1987a. Quantum mechanics is a different way of describing it, but you can set up and measure quantum states to make them reproducible. Also, you shouldn't be asking questions in the main body of the question, and mind-matter interaction is a bogus bunk, and likely criminal when it comes to government grants.