Theory is not Reality
By Mark Stewart
11-22-2007
Theory is at best only an approximation to or a model of reality. This goes even for theories that have become
highly developed, very sophisticated and that are fully amenable to testing in the laboratory. Let us take the
example of the structure of the atom. This is a subject that has been worked on since the time of the ancient
Greeks, but only effectively for over a century now. A tremendous amount of sophistication has been possible.
The first of the modern concepts was that of Rutherford who was able to demonstrate that the positive charge
in the atom is concentrated in a small region of space that is called the nucleus. He proposed a picture of a
central nucleus surrounded by orbiting electrons, much as the planets orbit the sun. The very fact that one
likens it to the solar system means that it is only a picture, a model. It is not the reality, but merely a
simplification or abstraction of reality. Like any model, Rutherford’s atom accounted for or explained certain
facts, but not for all of them, and very soon this model was in dire trouble because it appeared to contradict the
laws of electrodynamics. Then Niels Bohr came along and indicated that the trouble was that they were
attempting to apply rules that may not apply on the scale of the atom. He indicated that they must adopt new
laws and introduce new rules to explain the stability of the atom. So he proposed a more sophisticated theory,
the quantum theory of the atom. The idea was further developed so that no longer did one think of a single
orbiting particle, like a planet orbiting the sun, but of the probability of finding a certain electrical charge at a
particular point in space. Now this explains other things that could not be explained on the simpler models. You
see, the model is getting more and more complicated, but it is still a model. Later I will discuss a newer toroidal-
ring model of the atom. This will come into play when we discuss the forces of nature and eventually how and
why this all ties into a theory of ghost manifestation. The point being made here and now however is that a
theory is never a reality; it is always a model or a representation of reality, more or less crude.
Consider that other classical example, the nature of light. Originally people like Isaac Newton believed that light
was corpuscular, consisting of particles. That idea was dislodged by the phenomenon of diffraction and it
became evident that one could only explain the behavior of light by saying that it consisted of waves. Then, of
course, further experiments were made and it was found that the idea of particles, the corpuscular concept, had
to be reintroduced. So here is a case where the phenomenon of light was first viewed as corpuscular in nature,
then as wave-like, and then again as corpuscular. Eventually the situation has been reached in which we have
to say really light is both corpuscular and wave-like. Sometimes it behaves like a wave; sometimes it behaves
like a stream of particles. Thus reality can only be expressed by two quite contradictory models. The reality is
more complicated than the model, and in this case, so complicated that, in order to picture it at all, we have to
adopt a dual model comprehending two apparently opposed concepts. Quite obviously the model corresponds
only crudely with the reality that we call light.
There is therefore much in any theory that does not correspond to reality. Data must be smoothed out,
interpolated and extrapolated before arriving at the theory that is a satisfactory model, for the time being, of
that which one is trying to represent. But it is, in the last analysis, only a representation.
I have spent a great deal of time on the nature of theory and I have said three things about it: theory is to be
differentiated from the facts; theory can exist on all levels of precision or validity; and theory is at best only an
approximation to, reality. We are now in a position to consider the uses and abuses of scientific theory.
By Mark Stewart
11-22-2007
Theory is at best only an approximation to or a model of reality. This goes even for theories that have become
highly developed, very sophisticated and that are fully amenable to testing in the laboratory. Let us take the
example of the structure of the atom. This is a subject that has been worked on since the time of the ancient
Greeks, but only effectively for over a century now. A tremendous amount of sophistication has been possible.
The first of the modern concepts was that of Rutherford who was able to demonstrate that the positive charge
in the atom is concentrated in a small region of space that is called the nucleus. He proposed a picture of a
central nucleus surrounded by orbiting electrons, much as the planets orbit the sun. The very fact that one
likens it to the solar system means that it is only a picture, a model. It is not the reality, but merely a
simplification or abstraction of reality. Like any model, Rutherford’s atom accounted for or explained certain
facts, but not for all of them, and very soon this model was in dire trouble because it appeared to contradict the
laws of electrodynamics. Then Niels Bohr came along and indicated that the trouble was that they were
attempting to apply rules that may not apply on the scale of the atom. He indicated that they must adopt new
laws and introduce new rules to explain the stability of the atom. So he proposed a more sophisticated theory,
the quantum theory of the atom. The idea was further developed so that no longer did one think of a single
orbiting particle, like a planet orbiting the sun, but of the probability of finding a certain electrical charge at a
particular point in space. Now this explains other things that could not be explained on the simpler models. You
see, the model is getting more and more complicated, but it is still a model. Later I will discuss a newer toroidal-
ring model of the atom. This will come into play when we discuss the forces of nature and eventually how and
why this all ties into a theory of ghost manifestation. The point being made here and now however is that a
theory is never a reality; it is always a model or a representation of reality, more or less crude.
Consider that other classical example, the nature of light. Originally people like Isaac Newton believed that light
was corpuscular, consisting of particles. That idea was dislodged by the phenomenon of diffraction and it
became evident that one could only explain the behavior of light by saying that it consisted of waves. Then, of
course, further experiments were made and it was found that the idea of particles, the corpuscular concept, had
to be reintroduced. So here is a case where the phenomenon of light was first viewed as corpuscular in nature,
then as wave-like, and then again as corpuscular. Eventually the situation has been reached in which we have
to say really light is both corpuscular and wave-like. Sometimes it behaves like a wave; sometimes it behaves
like a stream of particles. Thus reality can only be expressed by two quite contradictory models. The reality is
more complicated than the model, and in this case, so complicated that, in order to picture it at all, we have to
adopt a dual model comprehending two apparently opposed concepts. Quite obviously the model corresponds
only crudely with the reality that we call light.
There is therefore much in any theory that does not correspond to reality. Data must be smoothed out,
interpolated and extrapolated before arriving at the theory that is a satisfactory model, for the time being, of
that which one is trying to represent. But it is, in the last analysis, only a representation.
I have spent a great deal of time on the nature of theory and I have said three things about it: theory is to be
differentiated from the facts; theory can exist on all levels of precision or validity; and theory is at best only an
approximation to, reality. We are now in a position to consider the uses and abuses of scientific theory.
 |  |