[samograd]

My mistake is thinking that the dimensions above 3+1 (space + time) are not part of spacetime proper, which I why I would say /out there/ because these dimensions are not apparent although theoretically defined. My argument is based on the twisty path moving through n dimensions (including the first 3) and not necessarily through the +1 of time.

I'm also seeing a problem of names, where 'the electron' and 'the twisty path' are being used interchangeably, but we're also talking about 'an electron' and 'the electrons' that exist on the reality surface. It gets confusing :)

I can see the 'barber shop twist' as being able to provide the necessary spin, but I'm not seeing how a sperical radius can come about from a slice along a path; a circular diameter yes, but a spherical radius is escaping me, unless the slicing 'leaks' energy (or harmony) to create some filling space around the intersection.

Nice discussion, but the indentation level is getting deep. Continue over email? Mine is in my profile if you're interested.

[pdonis]

the dimensions above 3+1 (space + time) are not part of spacetime proper

This depends on how "spacetime" is defined, which, as far as I can tell, depends on who is doing the defining. I've seen some papers where the word "spacetime" is applied to the full 10- or 11-dimensional manifold on which string theory (more precisely, superstring theory) is done; I've seen others which carefully use "spacetime" only to apply to the 3+1 manifold we actually observe, and use other terms like "internal symmetries" to describe the other dimensions.

That said, I think there is a more fundamental issue with a model which says there is only one electron and it moves in a twisty path through all 10 or 11 dimensions instead of just 4. (I see you actually had in mind a model with the twisty path not including the time dimension; that won't work either, see below.) Such a model could be constructed, but in order to compare it with experiment, it would have to make predictions involving only the 4 dimensions (3 space + 1 time) that we actually observe. In other words, whatever is happening in the other dimensions would have to boil down to determining the numbers or coefficients that appear in the ordinary 3+1 dimensions, things like the mass and charge of the electron; we have no way to actually observe "movement" in the other dimensions, and we certainly do observe electrons moving in the 3+1 dimensions, so the only predictions we can test are predictions about movement in the 3+1 dimensions, and other things like the mass and charge of the electron that we can measure in 3+1 dimensions.

In other words: any model that says "there is only one electron" has to include that one electron following a twisty path in the 3+1 dimensions we observe, regardless of what it says about the electron's path in other dimensions. And whatever it says about the electron's path in other dimensions can't be tested experimentally anyway, except if it makes predictions about numbers like the mass and charge of the electron that we can measure.

My argument is based on the twisty path moving through n dimensions (including the first 3) and not necessarily through the +1 of time.

Time has to be included, because we observe electrons at different times. A twisty path that didn't move through the time dimension would predict that we would only observe electrons at one single instant, and then they would all vanish (because the single electron underlying all those observations doesn't move through the time dimension).

I'm not seeing how a sperical radius can come about from a slice along a path

Remember that the "slice" is 3-dimensional. When you are imagining a circular slice, you're imagining a 2-dimensional slice. The 3-dimensional analogue of that is a spherical slice; in other words, the intersection of a 3-dimensional slice out of spacetime with the twisty tube that is the electron is a sphere.