With all due respect, these papers are not written for the layman. They are written for the few thousand people who work in the field or near enough to understand this work. Single results in physics (and science) in general are almost never individually relevant to the public. The public should read either review or meta papers, or they should read the articles/books written by scientists for public consumption. As a physicist, I rarely upvote physics papers on HN, unless there is insightful commentary in the comments.

This is not an insult to anyone who is not a scientist - just that jargon is necessary for rapid progress, and understanding jargon requires developing expertise by many years of work.

This paper is really not meant for the layman. Even PhD physicists would find it terse unless they are working in the field of quantum information or AMO physics.

However, there are many exciting and great resources where anybody interested can learn more about advanced physics. "The Theoretical Minimum" or Feinman's Lecture series are a great long on boarding experience that starts slow but gets pretty serious towards the end.

And many researchers have more pop-sci type of blogs and media materials for those that want just a quick fix.

To those saying the paper isn't for the "layperson", or average reader - papers like this exist to fluff the ego of the author more than they exist to convey information. It's very possible to write in a way that is both accessible to everyone and still informative to experts.