Last night, I watched this documentary, which talks of a geometry/pattern as a unified field. Nassim brings up a lot of topics that I've wondered about: role of assumptions in science equations (the build up that's been neglected), the observation/derivation of constants, the hidden patterns, and the mystery of the big and small looking much the same. I need to look into the physics more deeply for comparisons, but I did notice that some of his facts were off by some orders of magnitude. What I'm really interested to know is how different is this from what physics is already chasing. In this particular talk, he too limits himself to the how rather than the why.
This talk gives a great idea for journals like Science and Nature or perhaps publishers like Elsevier to start "Science Talks" at a generalist audience where they feature the breakthrough science discoveries as explained by the discoverers. The talk then can be recorded and put online for the world. It would make a big difference in closing this gap between science and the public.
A major obstacle right now in informal learning is the language and format of scientific literature. To reach a wider audience, and for the wider audience to see the novelty and spark further creation given their own limitations of time, videos and talks have shown to be successful in transmitting complex information in an engaging format. So it could be a start.
A lot of scientists are invited to TED Talks and even Google Talks, but this concept should be tied into the authors more deeply, a step towards bringing Science Shows back into fashion. We may not have the 3D theatrics of the 1800s, but our computers can do a lot :)