Scientific American and the Economist have some good science writers. NPR has some good reporting. But daily newspapers and weekly news magazine (except, of course, the Economist) are useless when it comes to science reporting.

Here’s a scientist-fiction scenario: respectable theoretical physicist, stuck on his research, is at the renowned university library walking aimlessly through the stacks, when he discovers an obscure book he hadn’t noticed before. The book is an alchemical text, apparently centuries old. Fascinated, he reads it in its esoteric entirety, seeing glimpses of the thing he is searching for. But how to formalize this with the rigor of mathematics, he exclaims to himself!? His colleagues begin to notice changes in his demeanor, he stops comb his hair and sleeps in his clothes and avoids everyone at all costs. The philosopher’s stone was a folk psychological, pre-scientific, inchoate perception of the Holy Grail of science, the Unified Theory. String theory was a good start, but there was something missing here. It’s non-testability was a good start, but there lacked a vision. The scientist was part of the physical world as much as that which he studied, the philosopher’s stone was the technological feat that would once and for all bridge the gap between scientist and his Object of study, “mind” and matter. It would transform the lead of the soul into pure energy, which would lead to the next level of evolution. The scraps of string theory and the prescient archetypal mappings of the early alchemists provided the theoretical foundation. He secretly began to contact engineers he could trust with his secret, as he began preparations to build his machine. Immortality, Cosmic Gold, he could taste it…