Into the vortex.
Actual profile equations. Integrated particles. Measured numerical error.
Stay inside the collapse.
Numerical diagnostics
A local solution of the paper’s profile equations with experimental axis data. The full Navier–Stokes construction is not implemented.
Equations, chosen data, and fidelity limits
Implemented: solve Q − Z²Q²ʰ = 1, set q = τQ, η = Z/Qᴰ, X = R²/(2Q), then evaluate the Cartesian velocity in (4.5). Radial flux follows (4.7). The profiles are Taylor series in X with Chebyshev coefficients in η, generated by the recurrences from (4.13).
Chosen data: h = 0.005, j₀ = 0.025, Λ = 2, σ* = 1, C = 1.5. U(0,η) = 4η + j₀ and F(0,η) use (B.1), (B.3). Π(0,η) = −2/(1+η²)² is experimental; it is not the matched exterior datum (A.21). These parameter values are not certified to meet the global construction’s thresholds.
Truncation: radial order 10; Chebyshev degree 64; display/integration chart 0 ≤ X ≤ 0.08, |η| ≤ 0.6. The boundary cage marks this chart. Exiting particles are reseeded; scrubbing reseeds the ensemble. Only motion after seeding is a trajectory.
Diagnostics: centred second-order differences use steps δ√τ in the transverse directions, δτᴰ axially, and δτ in time. The momentum metric divides the RMS of ∂ₜu + (u·∇)u − Δu + ∇p by the root-sum-square RMS of those four terms. Energy uses midpoint quadrature and the exact cylindrical coordinate Jacobian. Finite-grid maxima and step-doubling differences are estimates, not rigorous error bounds.
Not implemented: the matched pressure/exterior construction, stress-cone certification, high-order background corrections, oscillatory pulses, compact forcing and localization, and the start-from-rest transition. This is a local numerical profile experiment, not a reconstruction or validation of the paper’s blowup solution.
Inward, around, and out.
Particles follow dx/dt = u(x,t) with adaptive RK4 integration. Colours use computed speed. Arrows show the local velocity direction; the cage marks the finite chart.
Smaller in every direction.
Radius ∝ τ½; length ∝ τ½−h. Both shrink, but the radius contracts faster. Here h = 0.005; the change in slenderness is subtle.
Local equations, explicit limits.
The local profile equations are solved numerically with chosen axis data. The matched exterior, forcing, and corrections are absent. The displayed unforced residual is not small.