These sorts of books can be interesting as a sort of 'history of science', but I find they are very misleading, and can't help but end up as exaggerated dramatizations of a handful of the personalities involved with virtually no scientific or mathematical content. I understand that this is probably the best the authors can do, since actual content would require years of academic preparation and near full time study on the audience's part to be able to start to approach most of these topics, but that should be a huge clue that the essence can't really be boiled down.

If any of the core ideas of these subjects were accessible in any significant way via just reading a book with no real prerequisites or preparation, people wouldn't have to spend 4 years of full time study just to get to the point that some of them are considered to be prepared to start to study them in a serious way.

There may be some value to science in that these popularizations increase support for science funding by creating 'fans of science', the people that read them are no better off or more educated than if they had just read a romance novel or a western.

TLDR; you aren't learning anything when you read these books, other than a exaggerated biography (with largely invented stories of conflict and drama) of some of the scientists.