If there are no objections, I would wish to heavily modify this article. My apologies beforehand if this seems too critical.
The physics the article discusses seem to be a bit dubious. To begin with, physically, there is no distinction between tangible “real space” and any intangible space — there is only one space, and it is impossible to fully separate from time for any practical purpose. Space-time is one unified construct, and there is no physical reason to say it can be “observed” but “not directly experienced” — all of space and all of time are part of space-time, and insofar as space and time can be experienced, so can space-time.
Newtonian space is just a model that poorly approximates “Einsteinian”, i.e. relativistic space; it is not actually a real type of space itself. It is nothing more than a mathematical framework to simplify calculations. Thus, statements such as “The terminus of n-space has never been conclusively decided but is thought to extend several light seconds in every direction” do not make any sense scientifically. Anyone can choose to calculate using the model of n-space whenever he or she wants at any distance, but it will be less accurate than using Einsteinian space at every distance, no matter how small.
The section on Einsteinian space also seems to have significant confusion. Relativity is always applicable, at any distance, mass, or velocity, not just “beyond distances fully understandable by most sentient minds”. However, relativity is more vital in higher gravitational fields or greater velocities, because the Newtonian model is very inaccurate by comparison in such situations. The article states that relativity makes end results “difficult or impossible to predict” based on relative positions, but this, too, is inaccurate; relativity as a predictive tool is better than Newtonian mechanics, as long as enough data are supplied. Again, the article says “The entire universe outside of a handful of light seconds from the observer is e-space”, but physically, the entire universe is relativistic space.
The idea of a quantum or “Kraussian” space is perhaps more understandable, because quantum mechanical calculations are usually only applicable at small distances. However, this limited applicability is only a practical one, not a theoretical one; there is no actual different space at those small distances, we just use different models to describe space. Ultimately, all spaces are the same. The only limitation is how we mathematically model it. When we gain more advanced understanding of physics, all of these models should ultimately be unified into one complete model of space.
As for Hawking space, in modern physics there is no such thing as “outside” of real space as far as we know. Black holes are an interesting subject here, because in modern times we still do not actually know anything definite about the centres of black holes (called “singularities”), so it is possible that they could have some anomalous properties. Nevertheless, we have considerable theoretical knowledge about the properties of black holes between the event horizon (the surface that marks the point of no return) and the singularity. The article's assertion that the interior of a black hole “is composed of all the building blocks of the universe in a single point” nonetheless must be wrong, because all matter inside black holes loses all of its properties as far as observers are concerned (this is called the “no-hair theorem”: see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem]). The article furthermore refers to exotic particles as “not known to exist”, which is accurate, but then it treats them as if they do exist! There's nothing wrong with speculating about wormholes and exotic particles, but shouldn't we keep it consistent?
Apologies again if I seem overly critical, but from a scientific perspective, this article would need heavy revision to be plausible.
