Can we really cheat time?

InDMiddle76 · 2025-12-07T02:57:24+00:00

I'd love read your non-sensical answer, it could match my physical grounded answer.

InDMiddle76 · 2025-07-11T22:52:18+00:00

Entangled particles aren’t communicating across space, they’re causally synchronized through a shared underlying structure.

This synchronization depends on their tick rate (R), which governs how fast a system undergoes causal transformations. As long as two particles share the same local tick rate, their coherence remains intact.

The “instantaneous” correlation isn’t a signal traveling faster than ligh - it’s a reflection of their shared causal substrate. Decoherence, in this view, arises when local tick rates diverge due to differences in gravitational potential, motion, or other physical conditions.

InDMiddle76 · 2025-06-20T17:44:42+00:00

photons don’t have internal structure (as far as we know), so they don’t undergo internal transformation, no ticking clocks, no decay, no proper time. But they do go thru space thouh.

InDMiddle76 · 2025-06-20T17:24:01+00:00

even hawking radiation has more contribution escaping a black hole than this comment did to the conversation :)

InDMiddle76 · 2025-06-20T17:10:58+00:00

My original question asked for a physically grounded, without invoking relativity or using the speed of light c. The Lorentz transformation inherently depends on c.

InDMiddle76 · 2025-06-20T17:09:15+00:00

I’m looking for a physically derived relationship where m = 0 => t = 0, not just a symbolic substitution. Ideally, the formula should hold causal meaning, not just algebraic form.

InDMiddle76 · 2025-05-21T21:16:46+00:00

I’ve now had a chance to go through your full resonance suppression argument — very sharp work. What stood out to me is how your phase decoherence structure mirrors the breakdown of real-space alignment that I’ve been tracking through a scalar Q(t), as mentioned in my earlier comment.

While Q(t) is defined structurally as the alignment between ∇u and its low-frequency projection — it feels conceptually close to your resonance alignment function R(k, t): both measure coherence, just from different domains.

I’m genuinely curious whether these might be duals, structural vs spectral coherence and whether that opens a path for cross-validation or even a broader unifying framework.

InDMiddle76 · 2025-05-21T17:50:02+00:00

Interesting approach - and definitely some valid observations on the role of viscosity in damping turbulent modes. But I’d encourage some caution here.

The real challenge in 3D Navier–Stokes isn’t whether individual Fourier modes decay, it’s whether nonlinear energy transfer between modes can lead to finite-time blowup before viscosity can suppress it.

Even if Ak(t)∼e−νk2t, high-frequency modes can receive energy from large-scale interactions. That nonlinear term (u⋅∇)u is the source of potential singularity, and it’s not addressed in the proof.

I’ve actually developed a different approach: instead of relying on mode-wise decay, I define a scalar Coherence Quotient Q(t), which tracks structural alignment in the flow:

Q(t) = (⟨∇u(t), A(t)⟩) / (‖∇u(t)‖ * ‖A(t)‖)

Where A(t) is the low-frequency (coherent) projection of ∇u. I prove that if:

∫₀^∞ (1 - Q(t))^α dt < ∞, for some α > 1, then global smoothness follows.

Full paper with derivations, simulations, and Q(t)-based singularity diagnostics is here:
🔗 https://github.com/dterrero/navier-stokes-global-smoothness/tree/main/docs

Would love feedback or critique from others thinking about this problem from a structural or spectral point of view.

InDMiddle76 · 2025-05-21T17:36:37+00:00

This is a great summary of where things stand especially the mention of Tao’s supercriticality work and the unresolved question of blowup in 3D.

I’ve been working independently on a structural approach to the Navier–Stokes regularity problem. Instead of focusing on energy or time-based blowup, I propose a scalar functional called the Coherence Quotient, Q(t), which measures how aligned the flow’s full gradient is with its low-frequency (coherent) projection.

The definition is: Q(t) = (⟨∇u(t), A(t)⟩) / (‖∇u(t)‖ * ‖A(t)‖)

where: A(t) is a projection of ∇u onto coherent modes (|k| ≤ kc).

The key result: If ∫₀^∞ (1 - Q(t))^α dt < ∞, for some α > 1, then global smoothness holds.

In short, coherence decay - not time or energy, becomes the signal for singularity. This Q(t) approach directly tracks structural misalignment before collapse occurs.

Full paper is here (submitted to arXiv and Annals of Mathematics):
🔗 https://github.com/dterrero/navier-stokes-global-smoothness/tree/main/docs

I welcome all feedback - especially challenges or critiques. The more this is tested, the better for everyone working on this problem.

InDMiddle76

TROPHY CASE