That's a tall order and I think quantamagazine does a good job with this.
For a properly prepared and motivated person, the quantamagazine article could be a starting point for further reading, for example, like lengthy review articles in subject-matter journals. But far more common, I think, it's just an interesting cursory read for anybody who happens to stumble upon this in their news feed. That's OK.
My decently informed layman's understanding [1] led me to believe this article was a very well written description of some fascinating developments. As of now, I want to read more articles like it.
To be fair, I may be representative of a smaller niche. I agree that many laypeople might struggle with the technical parts.
However, I would love to know specifically how I may be mistaken in what I am taking away from these articles, if anything.
[1] I majored in math and am an avid follower of physics and cosmology.
Exactly because of how knowing works, I think articles like this can have an important place. They can open up new concepts for us (often little more than an empty node that can later be filled in). For experts in the broader field, they can give a quick impression of what other people are working on which might stimulate digging into more detail. And for experts on this topic, taking such writing seriously can have benefits like keeping their work in perspective and stimulating creativity (see Feynman's point about teaching physics 101).
And yes, these articles satisfy emotional needs. But what good thing doesn't?
Edit: I was mostly responding to the parent->parent, not so much disagreeing with the parent, who raised a good point.
Curiosity and wonder are the motivation for understanding, even among researchers.
Or do you believe that researchers do their work for a PhD and for the compensation?
Not sure why you mention anger. I picture an angry plumber ripping up an issue of Popular Science while sitting in a La-Z-Boy and drinking a Rolling Rock.
Nowhere does his post condemn the satisfying of emotional needs. In fact, given that emotions are primary action catalysts, his post asserts Quanta is doing very important cultural work.
Let me respond to the left turn you just took. There are genetic and social differences between our prehistoric ancestors and modern humans. Where exactly we draw the line of who is a "caveman" and who is not, is ancillary to the point:
You're evaluating the statement, a "then" statement, without considering the antecedents from its parent comment.
He uses "laypeople" to describe a group of people who are not truly interested, who are not seeking understanding, and who use pop-sci literature to abate basal emotions like anger.
> In fact, given that emotions are primary action catalysts, his post asserts Quanta is doing very important cultural work.
By that logic, every magazine for people who are not truly interested and don't seek understanding is potentially culturally important if it can connect with emotions. I don't buy it.
He says the layperson isn't seeking understanding, yes. To conflate that, and curiosity, wonder, and anger, with being -not truly interested-, baffles me. Maybe you disagree that interest manifests in ways besides seeking understanding?
Right, and the layperson is just interested in those first two things, whereas the researcher follows through to the point of understanding. Or maybe they don't. Someone who does research is not necessarily interested in understanding every single field either.
An individual seeking more information about physics will likely understand that complex math will be deeply involved.
The problem tackled by a pop-sci article shouldn't be to inspire the individual to develop a thorough background in math but to inspire a different way of thinking or to introduce new concepts.
This is one of the hardest parts of communicating research to the layperson -- it can often come across as deceptively simple. Ten minutes of simplified communication summarizes ten years of blood, sweat and tears by dozens of people.
EDIT: I'm pretty optimistic about the Bootstrap idea in particular; I'm not trying to downplay its importance. But I wanted to convey that the way it'll end up helping might be very different from the leaps anticipated in the article, as it would be for any such article on any area of research.
So anybody who uses the description "earth shattering" more than once a decade is probably overselling the importance of individual papers.