[kamac]

I think anything can be portrayed to the popular audience. Other comments here explaining the terms used in the article suggest that this is possible. The only problem is that some fine information would most likely be lost with a simplified explanation.

[klank]

I think there's an additional difficulty when those unfamiliar with more rigorous (as compared to pop sci anyway) physics/mathematical discussions.

There is simply a great deal of unintuitive interactions to keep in mind all, at once, when attempting to rationalize how many of these interactions happen. Physicists and mathematicians combat this by working with specific abstractions enough to become intuitively familiar with the behavior of said abstractions.

Unfortunately, this packing away of unintuitive complexity behind intuitive interactions is unavailable to the lay reader. Any specific interaction can be explained in simple enough language, eventually, if the curious reader keeps asking why. However, when they attempting to pop back up the why stack and get back to the big picture (i.e. the world people can understand intuitively), lay readers lose the nuance in the noise created by the volume.

[theoh]

The verb "portray" doesn't mean what you guys seem to think it means.

[klank]

Perhaps you could elucidate us with the way you feel people are misusing the word?

[ada1981]

Fine information on both sides, as they say.