Will scientific theories ever match reality exactly?

No because when they do they become scientific LAWS

e.g. the Law of Gravity

This approach was put forward by Karl Popper in the 1920s, and has become a tired dogma ever since. Why would we suppose that scientific theories progress ever more closely to measuring reality? On what basis? We can only describe what we experience in language that is already imbued with our theoretical presuppositions. We, for example, might see Venus in the morning sky and describe it as a 'planet'. But that language is theoretically informed, as we know because recently Pluto has been re-classified, and thus we can now only talk about 8 planets round the Sun, not 9 as we could have only recently. So a 'planet' is a theoretical category, prone to changes of meaning!

Language aside, there is the difficulty that what any one of us might experience is variable, partial, and often prone to differing interpretations. Apart from the chances that we might be drunk, drugged, or depraved, our education and orientations affect our perceptions directly.

What is at fault in your question is the assumption or assertion that there is, somewhere, a monolithic reality waiting for our tape measures to accurately size it up.

I'm also unhappy with the way the word 'scientific' is used, as this is so frequently applied like a posh and shiny sticking plaster, to instil reverence in much the same way that mediaeval cathedrals did for the verities of religion.

Much more interesting questions arise from asking ourselves how we are to interpret and use the knowledge we have, and acquire the knowledge we need!

Theories do not become laws. Theories encompass laws and facts - the theory of gravitation contains Newton's laws and Keplers laws, the gravitational constant (fact out to 10+ decimal points), orbital mechanics, etc. Anything new we discover about gravity will still fall under gravitational theory.

We can model some realities very well, others (chaotic things, like the weather) poorly due to their fundamental nature. For instance, we can model orbital mechanics well enough to land spacecraft on distant planets.

Science is reality - but maybe poorly modelled reality. But reality nonetheless.

Maybe at some point we will gain a theory of theories and so get ever closer to reality, maybe M theory will do this when it is finished.

The human mind may have its limits, but it always seems to find a way of reaching further.

Discover one planet before see it is not close, but perfect match.

Mathematics based on theorie proved only after.

Discover paternity through DNA was theory once.

Same with theory about Mamut-elephant evolution links based on bones (Just a theory - before DNA )match.

Interesting is understand which context. If something is more complex, have more variables, it is more dificult to determine reality with precision. ... But controled environments are more easier to do previsions.

Always a matter about context.

theories can never be proven... that is why they are called theories....

some things can be proven...i.e. DNA is a double helix, the human genome was mapped, most chemistry and biology experiments are not "theories" but proven things...

physics, social sciences, etc... often have "theories" because there is no way to prove antyhing concretely with the tools we have. the closest we can come is "strong theory". there is also "grounded theory" for sociologists... which again, can never be proven but you can get some strong results and be pretty sure you are right.

isn't it better to have a strong scienticic theory that is based on evidence than to have nothing? or do you prefer to believe in faith / magic / religion?

Karma

Everything has an equal and opposite reaction

Energy cannot be created nor destroyed

Your damned if yer do and yer damned if yer dont

No. Scientists will never stop theorising therefore reality will never catch up

**** happens!