Originally Posted by Nereid

As you know, modern physics accounts for fusion extremely well, with a fundamentally very simple theory called QCD.

What aspects of fusion, within mainstream physics, are not explained, in terms of detailed, quantitative matches between theory and the entire set of good observational and experimental results? In other words, what is the complete set of gaps, wrt fusion, where 'paeps striking nuclei just right' may add explanatory value?

I have no in depth view of how fusion works. We are on that topic because you initiated it. To the extent that I have opinions here it is, as usual, with the logic. In this case I cant relate to so many different kinds of particles. To me QCD is not simple. In the back of my mind I would rather define all the events within and between atomic particles as being initiated by the rapid motion of paeps. In no case am I suggesting gaps in current successful theories.

How, in principle, could your ATM idea about 'paeps striking nuclei just right' in (hydrogen) fusion be tested?
My reason there is action in which fusion occurs is that paeps occasionally impact particles within the sun. I have defined paeps as being the background of space and as such indistinguishable to us other than in the outcome of their pushing pressure which produces gravity etc. Being the background, paeps themselves are probably not testable.
==================

When will you be answering all the other direct, pertinent questions about your ATM idea(s), as presented?