OP, you are asking the wrong question. A theory can NEVER invalidate an experimental outcome. If a theoretical model is inconsistent with an experimental fact, that means that either the model is wrong, used outside its domain of applicability, or someone applying the model made an error or has failed to include all relevant physical effects. It is impossible to disprove an experiment with a theory.
Of course, if an experiment is incompatible with well-established theoretical expectations (in this case: that in room-temperature matter it is very unlikely that enough energy can be concentrated in a single point to initiate a nuclear reaction), it should better be very well executed and evaluated. And this is precisely what did not happen in the cold fusion case, which has lead to the sorry state the field is in. But a few physicists still believe the effects are real (there even are still conferences on "low energy nuclear reactions", how the field is called, nowadays). And who knows? Maybe they turn out to be right in the end, and some strange combination of physical effects no one thought of before (and thus did not include in her theoretical model!) actually can initiate the reactions.
