Can a scientific model explain observations?

Scientific models change to reflect ongoing research to explain discrepancies in current theory versus actual experimental results.

No one, with the possible exception of your mother-in-law, knows everything, so we continue trying to explain why the current models work most of the time but not all of the time.

For instance, Isaac newton developed a few laws of things in motion that worked perfectly and without fail for Apples falling on your head, Bowling balls and freight trains in motion, but when a few people tried to "smash the atom", that is, to shoot a subatomic particle into the nucleus of an atom, it didn't work. Using Mr. Newton's laws and calculations, they missed every time.

So along came Albert Einstein and mentor max Planck and a few others and, voila! we have a new set of rules, a new model, which works perfectly for little tiny particles...and voila again, we hit the thing dead center.

I doubt that the rules of motion for little particles work for bowling balls, so we still need a tweeked theory that works for both - a new model once again.

Ray