Your premise is due to the physical nature of the device under test it is possible that occurrence of higher frequencies vibrations can be predicted by lower frequencies and this is important as it will allow you to use a lower bandwidth sensor that can only respond to lower frequencies.
Interesting problem and I would suggest this approach to find evidence of any such correlation:
You will be simply correlating “waveforms” to determine this and in this case the suggested waveform to correlate would be frequency versus time. You can establish these waveforms using a sliding windowed DFT. Decide on a window length (further details on that below) and starting at the beginning of your much longer data captures window a block of the data (more details below) and then use the FFT to compute the DFT for that block. Save the data as time index n=0 and then shift the window by one sample and repeat to get the data to time index n=1. Repeat this to the end of the data set such that the result for each DFT bin represents frequency versus time (a form of the STFT). Once you have this result with frequency bins as columns and time index as rows you can cross correlate all columns to assess if there is anything significant. Anything that does not stand out significantly represents a noise sample, and you can rss all noise samples to get the noise floor of your measurement approach. I would say that anything that is <4 sigma is not significant and anything <2 sigma would reasonably be noise only. You can also do a histogram of the results which should be a standard bell curve but will also help show significant outliers.
Considerations for window size and window choice: with the length of the window you are trading frequency resolution with time resolution: the wider the window the narrower will be the frequency resolution. Specifically if you used a rectangular window the equivalent noise bandwidth of the result is 1 bin wide so the resolution in this case is $f_s/N$ where N is the number of samples or bins in the DFT and $f_s$ is the sampling rate. However the result will be the average frequencies over the time duration of the window so the trade space between time and frequency should be clear.
Next comes the window choice. With a rectangular window (no further scaling of the data prior to taking the DFT) the equivalent noise bandwidth is one bin as mentioned above. This is actually the best resolution you can achieve with the approach I describe as any other window will make the resolution wider. However most importantly is that with the rectangular window the shape of the equivalent filter in frequency is a Sinc function centered on each bin with first null at 1/T or 1 bin away. This means that there will be significant spectral leakage from other frequencies resulting in a false “correlation” if further windowing is not used. Windowing provides a trade of frequency resolution with dynamic range. The rectangular window has the best resolution (narrowest main lobe in its frequency response) but poorest dynamic range (highest sidelobes in its frequency response) compared to all other windows. It is important given your goal to window so that you don’t get a false sense of correlation due to those high sidelobes. I recommend the Kaiser window since you can adjust its Beta term to dynamically make the trade of resolution and dynamic range.
My guess is this would show that there is no significant correlation beyond integer harmonics but without having the mechanical model I can’t be certain of that so this will be interesting to see. If you do proceed with this,please post your results of what you find.