Whereas pretty much everyone recognizes that a literature review needs to be scholarly, people often seem to get confused about whether it is the literature review itself or its source studies that have to be scholarly. Many people argue that both need to be scholarly, but I disagree: whereas the literature review itself needs to be scholarly (that is, you need to do your review with scholarly rigour), I believe it is sometimes quite appropriate to include source studies in your review that might themselves not be scholarly works. So, to directly answer your question, yes, it might sometimes be appropriate to include non-scholarly books as part of the literature that you review in a literature review.
The challenge, though, with including non-scholarly sources is that a lot of them (maybe over 80% of books and magazines, and maybe 99% of web pages, just to make up some numbers) are garbage as far as scholarly usefulness is concerned. So, if you want to include such sources, it is absolutely critical that you carefully evaluate their quality before deciding to incorporate their arguments and conclusions in your literature review. The advantage of peer-reviewed scholarly sources is that some scholars have already done that work for you. If you use practitioner sources, then you have to do that work yourself. And if you don't, then garbage in, garbage out: your resulting literature review will be just as trashy as the sources you included.
Because of this, some scholars refuse to ever include non-scholarly sources in their literature reviews and advice against doing so. However, practitioner sources can sometimes provide excellent insights and data, and are often much more up-to-date and relevant than any available scholarly source. Thus, I think it's worth the trouble. For an excellent example of a scholarly literature review that incorporates many non-scholarly sources, see Elliot, Steve. "Transdisciplinary perspectives on environmental sustainability: a resource base and framework for IT-enabled business transformation." MIS Quarterly 35.1 (2011): 197-236.
For your specific situation, the books you mentioned seem to be written by respectable physicists (I don't know, though, since I'm not a physicist). If so, they should cite their sources for their claims and arguments. These sources that the books cite should be peer-reviewed. So, if you only repeat claims from these books that cite peer-reviewed sources (and in your literature review, you should cite both the book and the book's source), you should be safe. So, if you do that, then you can benefit from including in your literature review the exciting ideas of a popular book written by a serious scholar. However, if the book doesn't cite peer-reviewed sources, then you should question the reliability of its claims.
I talk about these issues in more detail in a working paper I wrote about how to build theory using literature reviews. Caveat: Some of my ideas have changed since I wrote it, but the sections on the Practical Screen and Quality Appraisal are quite relevant to the points I've raised here.
