Maybe for “math rock”.
Introductory linear algebra is probably about as far as I’ll ever progress in my mathematics education. I just don’t think I have the brains to take it any further. 
(Although I will probably make an attempt to understand factor analysis at some point. I have Andrew Comrey’s classic text on the subject, and I understand quite a bit of it). How much of Penrose’s book would I grok with that kind of background? Should I still try to read it, or should I just not even bother?
From the preface:
I’ll paraphrase them.
[ul]
[li]Completely turned off by the sight of a math formula. “Still a good deal that you can gain” by skipping and “reading just the words.”.[/li][li]“A reader who is prepared to peruse mathematical formulae”, but not “the inclination to verify for yourself”. If so, there is “no loss of continuity”.[/li][li]“You are a reader who does wish to gain a facility with these various mathematical notions, but for whom the ideas I’m describing are not all familiar”, then there are exercises throughout (with solutions at the end of the book).[/li][li]You’re an expert, already.[/li][/ul]
I found some sites that might other people who are as physics-challenged as I am to better understand the 2-slit experiment as described in “The Elegant Universe.”
First, I Googled on…
**2 slit experiment showing light as a wave**
(which shows how forgiving Google can be)
then…
**water waves showing interference**
(bolding mine) and I ended up getting a number of interesting sites that you too might want to visit.
Then, if you’re utterly uneducable (like you-know-who) you will probably have a great old time at
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/index.pl
Sections of this colorado.edu site were in the google searches, but this link takes you right to the Home Page. Curiously enough, once I got into the site, and hit the Back Arrow to try to return to the Home Page, nothing happened. Time and again, I had to go to the vertical window to the left of the main window (in Firefox browser) and click on Physics 2000.
Anyway, I sincerely hope you enjoy this unusual place.
Attention: Mathochist, ultrafilter, Ring, II Gyan II, and others of your ilk…
Each of your doctors has contacted me and begged that I urge you to avoid this site altogether. If you ignore this advice, you will suffer excruciating headaches, profound embarrassment, and prolonged depression with the realization that any adult would have a need for instruction at such an infantile level. You have been warned.
Snippet of a tygerbryght quote:
If someone has formulated some concept of the medium - especially its size, if that has any meaning whatsoever - in which the branes exist, I don’t recall seeing it anywhere. And I do follow that stuff, as much as I can comprehend of it anyway. Since this universe is at least 13.7 GY old, and hasn’t been … um … restarted, it seems implausible to me that brane collisions are terribly frequent.
Well in the video (mentioned in the OP), Michio Kaku uses a bubble as an analogy of our Universe. And he says that this bubble of ours might be immersed in an ocean of bubbles - other Universes. So perhaps, those collisions could be more frequent than we might expect.
And if that’s not weird enough, either Kaku, or another commentator said it would be easy for someone to go down to his cellar and create his own universe. It wouldn’t be a problem, he added, because this new Universe, would simply slither out of the confines of our Universe and slip into that void (or whatever he called it) to join all the other Universes.
For some reason, he didn’t say how one might create a Universe of his own. 
Don’t worry about it. This is far from an infantile level, given how little most American adults know about mathematics or physics. Only half of the academic mission is to break new ground – the other half is to teach others, no matter what their current ability. The fact that you’re interested already puts you head and shoulders above the majority.
Also, as I’ve said before: don’t worry that you don’t understand M-theory. I’m pretty sure Witten himself doesn’t understand M-theory. Nobody understands it (yet).
How true. I once heard on the radio that almost half of all adults in the United States are unaware that the stars are other Suns. And as I mentioned in another thread recently, most adults I know are capable of simple arithmetic only. In fact, I know plenty of grown adults who incapable of performing three digit multiplication with pencil and paper.
The mailperson just drove off—my copy of Elegant Universe is here. 
Bon appetit!
On the basis of statements made by Authorities about the acceptability of adding useful/factual/etc. information to zombie threads …
The August issue of Discover magazine has an article by Michio Kaku titled, “Testing String Theory” which is even more directly written for popular consumption than those appearing in Scientific American. It’s a good article, and helps to clarify lotsa stuff.
Tygerbryght,
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
I just called Borders and they have a copy on hold for me.
You’re entirely welcome. I thought some other people might be interested, too.
I tried to post this very close to midnight, Central Time on the 28th (IOW, ~25 hours ago), but it kept hanging up when I’d send. Then I got a message that there was a database problem at the SDMB. When I came to the site tonight, I had to logon - normally the site recognizes me. When I went to ATMB, I saw nothing about it. Hmmmmm.
Do you think this is really true? I seem to get the impression many lecturer types have a huge amount of impatience with those who are of low-level ability yet great enthusiasm.
In fact I remember a professor telling me in person that when there’s someone who’s clearly not on par with the rest of the group being taught, he usually advises them to pick another subject.
I think I got the impression from dudes like him and it’s stuck.
There are really two things going on here. Firstly, many professors disdain the second half of the purpose of the academy.
Secondly – and this is what I think is happening in your anecdote – just because one should teach all levels doesn’t mean one should teach them together. If someone is drastically out of step with the rest of a group, they’re better off in a group of their own level until they’re ready for the material they’re interested in. To slow the class down for them is to the detriment of the rest of the class and doesn’t fulfill their academic needs. If someone wants to be part of a higher-level group but refuses the necessary background, they’re just being unrealistic and selfish.