Tractatus, in a way, says World isn't what is out there, but is the world you imagine. World is what you would tell another person when you will recount this world. (It is what you would 'know' of the world). You will remember this world with a ripe land, tall green trees, shining sun, flowing river. We will also 'know', when recounting 'land', 'trees', 'sun', 'river', what relation one had with another -that sun shone at day, trees grew on land, rivers had fishes. They are 'facts'. They tell us what was the 'case'. This remembrance would be, in a manner of saying, logical picture because thoughts must be logical. We don't imagine facts when we imagine the World. (Facts are contained in the logical relationship one one object to another and Totality of these facts is therefore the complete description of world). When we imagine World, we imagine a logical picture. (This picture may correctly or incorrectly correspond to reality with complex probability functions -and will be the limit of my world). He has then developed a theory to explain how this happens -ending by saying that whatever we will 'say' about the world, cannot be what it 'was'. Exemplification cannot be said; it 'happens'.
I personally don't see anything blatantly wrong with the theory. It is a very convincing theory on the the kind of system it deals with (We say so just in case reality is 'not' reducible to the world Tractatus deals with). So my question is why was Tractatus not so successful (or is relevant today)? Also, can the ideas of logical picture be applied on our perception of science?