The quest for new physics. An experimentalist approach. The quest for new physics in high energy direction.

     The previous ideas were devoted mainly to the search of interactions weaker than gravitational or in the gap between the electromagnetic and gravitational force [1-3]. That seems like the cheapest and most under-investigated direction of research (for ultra low weight particles, ultra weak forces which may only reveal itself on the cosmic scales [4]). 

    However, there is a second more common direction of research in fundamental physics - towards the higher energies, as high as possible. The recent success of Standard Model instantly posed a question - what is next, where to go further? I already generated couple of ideas in this direction [5,6] and now it is time for the next one. 

    Assuming the Standard Model is valid in the areas the predictions coincide with experiment (on quark level) the fundamental electric charge (one of the oldest discoveries in physics) is not actually integer of charge of electron, but rather 1/3 (because quarks have charges 2/3, 1/3, positive and negative). Even artificial intelligence agrees with me, if asked through Google [7]:

"Fractional quark charges (like +2/3e or -1/3e) are more fundamental in describing particle substructure..."

They can not be seen outside the elementary particle like proton, this is true, but the presence of such fractional charges even inside the proton means that 1/3 and 2/3 charges are more primal compare to integer and possibly any integer is in essence combination of those fractions. That instantly means that electron is not elementary particle (because most probably it consists of some parts with 1/3 or 2/3 charge, despite most probably those constituents can not be separated similar to quarks). Of course, it is necessary to emphasize that the known quarks can not be inside the electrons (they have much higher mass and the whole Standard Model would fell apart if this is possible). That idea, however, is exactly New Physics - it is obviously goes beyond the known fundamental physics, does not contradict it (electron and muon are considered as elementary particles merely as a fit, as an approximation toward more general theory exactly like proton and neutron were considered as elementary particles 100 years ago). For example the neutron decay involves the conversion in charge from fractional number (in quarks) to the whole number (in electron) through the virtual W^- boson, which is very heavy (so may easily consists of many particles inside) and responsible for conversion down quark to up quark (manipulation with fractional charges) so it is a strong hint that in reality it is also a composite particles with constituents having charge 1/3, 2/3 and it is not split yet merely because it demands too much energy. The particle  W^- boson is electron  and most probably the fractional charges inside this boson is transferred to electron creating the unified charge of -1, being actually presented inside electrons like combination of -1/3, -1/3, -1/3 or -2/3, -2/3, +1/3 or even more complex. While nature is bizarre in it's laws and may have after all both fractional (1/3, 2/3) and integer numbers (-1, +1) being fundamental, there is a strong hint from history of science that only one variant predominates and electron, muon and other charged "elementary" particles are not really elementary, they only look elementary (because the fractional charge is more fundamental than integer).

     Why such discovery is not yet made? The answer is in experiment - during the rotation of charged particles in the synchrotron the energy loss due to synchrotron radiation is inversely proportional to non-relativistic  mass in the power of four [8]. Since proton is 1800 times more heavy it is dramatically easier to accelerate it in a classical circle accelerator compare to electron. While electrons are successfully accelerated in linear accelerators they can not yet reach the energies of TeV already reached for protons. 

    There is a serious push for even larger accelerator in the high energy community now and this hint toward discovery of internal structure of electron (muon actually should be easier to crack because of higher mass and possibly less "rigid" structure inside) may stir community interest toward linear accelerators of enormous power instead of more classical circles. In any case the money involved are huge and from my perspective much cheaper way to find New Physics stays in the opposite direction (toward as low energies as possible, see [1-4]

References.

1.THE QUEST FOR NEW PHYSICS An experimentalist approach: Where to find new physics?: Tipikin, Dmitriy: 9786204731735: Amazon.com: Books

2.https://www.morebooks.de/shop-ui/shop/product/9786205529867

3.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375517684_Tired_light_hypothesis_possibly_got_confirmation_by_direct_observation_of_light_scattering

2406.0162v1.pdf

4.Tipikin: Axionic dark matter possibility from light scattering demonstrated by JWST for high z objects.

5.Tipikin: Quantum vacuum application to gravity: the Higgs boson antigravitational particle predicted

6.Tipikin: Increase of the yield of the elementary particles created at collider through manipulations with quantum vacuum. A chemical approach to the elementary particle physics.

7.is fractional charges of quarks are more fundamental than the integer charge or electron - Google Search

8.Lecture 9a Synchrotron Radiation.ppt

Galaxy as an open system with thermonuclear engine causing rotation in spiral galaxy.

          This idea was already considered in this blog [1]. Indeed, why we consider the rotation of stars in the galaxy being equivalent to planets? The stars are generating a lot of energy, and if the mechanism is present transforming only ~1% of this energy into rotation, it may easily explain the rotation curve of any galaxy. The hint is actually Tully-Fisher relation [2] - brighter galaxies are rotating faster compare to dimmer one. What if indeed such mechanism is present (and indeed the original relation was for brightness of the galaxies - amount of energy they are generating-  not about mass, it is merely assumed that brighter galaxy has higher mass, which after all may be not true). In[1] it was hypothesized that such idea is possible because of "heavy light" - light inside the stars is moving much slower (the effective refraction coefficient is >100) and thus gravitating strongly, but the direct evaluation of this effect using binaries demonstrated that this effect even if present is way too weak to be responsible for the too fast rotation of galaxies [3].

          However, recent observation of the very large sizes of supernovae at high Z [4] leads to the idea of the dark matter being represented by some ultralight particles (femto to pico eV total mass) which do interact with light somehow (not "dark matter" after all) [5]. The present day search for extremely light particles interacting with light and predicted by Standard Model (axions) is well justified in this content - it is approximately what the so-called "dark matter" most probably looks like. I am expecting they will be discovered relatively soon (unfortunately they are enormously light in mass and thus discovery is enormously difficult). And those particles interacting with light indeed easily explain the so-called cusp problem [6] (why in the center of galaxy like Andromeda galaxy the concentration of "dark matter" is so small, if this matter is interacting only gravitationally [7]).

          The other property of such "light matter" halo around the galaxy is that it may create the mechanical feedback loop necessary to transform energy of light into the rotation of the galaxy:

            It is obvious that in such a dynamic system due to the slightest always present fluctuations the static equilibrium will be broken and dynamic equilibrium will corresponds to mixture of rotation and oscillations. Because of the presence of stars generating energy the positive feedback will quickly transform the galaxy into the open system similar to vortex in the bathtub. If the energy  supply is high enough - it will generate the similar pattern and will rotate approximately as a solid body starting from certain distance from the center - exactly what is observed. If the energy is not enough - no rotation, the attrition between stars will work like  a friction [8] and prevent rotation like in an elliptical galaxy.

            Afterall the galaxy rotation being similar to the bathtub water swirl may be due to the fact that both of them are open systems and not because of strangely looking "dark matter" which in reality is "light matter" and responsible for the transformation of the energy of thermonuclear synthesis into the mechanical energy of rotation.

References.

1.Tipikin: Light matter attraction as a driving force for Galaxy rotation - the energy transformed from thermonuclear to mechanical

2.Tully–Fisher relation - Wikipedia

3.2007.0195v1.pdf

https://vixra.org/pdf/2007.0195v1.pdf

Tipikin: Weak equivalence principle check for non-barionic matter using eclipsing spectrometric binaries. No evidence for dark matter.

4.Tipikin: The higher Z, the stronger the effect of light scattering present in the supernova images. Supernova at Z=3.6 looks gigantic.

5.Tipikin: Static Universe and cosmological constant - back to original Einstein equation with empirical cosmological constant. Light matter absorbs light, heats, generates pressure and holds galaxies from coalescence.

6.Cuspy halo problem - Wikipedia

7.Dark matter fraction derived from the M31 rotation curve | Astronomy & Astrophysics (A&A)

https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2025/02/aa52753-24/aa52753-24.html

8.An introduction to dynamical friction in stellar systems | American Journal of Physics | AIP Publishing

https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article-abstract/75/2/139/1056314/An-introduction-to-dynamical-friction-in-stellar?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Superstring theory has in foundations tremendous "leap of faith" - why it is dangerous and why other approximations may be work better.

 When superstring theory was started the scientists made not one but two important assumptions: second one is that the primal, most fundamental entity is one-dimensional (string) and first one, which is extremely general is that such a fundamental, smallest, non-dividable further entity exists at all. The first assumption is by far more important because there is  a lot of physicists (me included) who are sure that no fundamental entity exists at all, all the phenomena are emergent (made from something smaller), quark, for example will be split one day and any present day idea about the smallest entity is nothing more but the approximation, fit of nature laws, sooner or latter being replaced by something more fundamental, then by even more fundamental and so on.  

In this paradigm the theory of everything is impossible, scientists are discovering not the utmost laws but merely an approximations, fits of the natural phenomena doomed to be obsolete one day. Something like it was an approximate theory of liquid drop nucleus, which is now replaced by shell theory and will be replaced by something stemming directly from quarks one day and so on and so on. In this consideration the superstring idea is nothing more than  a fit of smaller but not smallest entity. That would be a bad fit for this situation. This is because once the even smaller than superstring entity is proposed, the interaction of those entities would try to minimize the energy, make short the surface and finally break the string. Null-dimensional primal entities (fit for right now) looks much better approach merely because they already have the surface energy minimized (sphere is the entity with smallest surface). If instead of superstring the superballs would be considered, they one day may generate at least some useful insights into the organization of the nature on the smaller level like liquid drop nuclei model was able to predict some useful phenomena like fission or oscillations of the nucleus [1-4].

This is because the analog of surface tension exists on all levels of the organization of matter - from round shape of planets, to the droplet of water, to the shape of nucleus - whenever even smaller entities are present, the inevitability of interactions between them demands decrease of total energy through round shape. If the interaction between entities are anisotropic the shape may be different (crystal) but in this case the existence of such anisotropy hints onto the lower level of matter organization present.

Only if the researcher is making a tremendous "leap of faith" and assumes that the entity is the smallest possible one may he or she consider it in a shape of string or bran (one-dimensional or two dimensional). In this case the shape may be different - by definition it is smallest, but if the assumption is wrong nothing useful will ever appear - the underlying entities will be assembled into something like balls (recall nucleus) not strings, because the string (cylinder) would have the surface energy well above minimum. The whole work will be a complete bullshit. That is why it is much safer to "play" with smallest entities being considered as null-dimensional - they will be eventually considered as built from something smaller but will work as a useful approximation [1-4]

References.

1.Semi-empirical mass formula - Wikipedia

2.Shape of the atomic nucleus - Wikipedia

3.The Discovery of Fission - Moments of Discovery

4.A comprehensive view of nuclear shapes, rotations and vibrations from fully quantum mechanical perspectives

Relation between theoreticians and experimentalists from historical perspective. Why so frequently the "small" experiment precedes the theory.

 One of the reasons for the huge crisis in fundamental physics is that theoreticians strongly overestimate the ability of foresee the organization of the natural phenomena and strongly underestimate the "inventiveness" of Nature. They still sure that the same approach what was fine for quantum mechanics and special/general relativity will work forever in the future. The historical examples show that in many cases the small but crucial experiment would be necessary to "stir" the attention of theoreticians to the right direction. 

1.Superconductivity (BCS theory) [1]. While it was clear that some kind of quantum effect is responsible for superconductivity, the majority of theoreticians were sure that the key is in the electronic properties of metals (band structure, interactions between atoms in the lattice or similar). Only the seemingly small discovery of very small isotopic effect (transition temperature change due to different isotope) created understanding that phonons are somehow responsible (because the electronic properties of both isotopes are precisely the same, but the different mass of the nuclei will create a difference in sound propagation and this is the only way to correlate the change of critical temperature while isotope is changed).

2.JJ Thompson model of the atom rejection [2]. After discovery of electron it was clear that inside the atom there are positively and negatively charged entities. While electron was correctly represented at that time as a small charged ball (OK for the beginning of the 20th century) the positive charge was represented as a big cloud (quite a reasonable assumption since nobody ever deal with this). So the theoreticians were building theories with those assumptions - electron is a small ball but positively charged cloud is big. Only smart experiment of Rutherford (rarely observed deviation of alpha particles on the very high angle) forced theoreticians to think about positive charge as about something very small inside the atom, no other evidence for such consideration existed from previous knowledge.

3.Quantization principle. There were many smart mathematicians before 20th century. They were modifying Newton equations and deriving them from numerous underlying principles - Hamilton, Lagrange, Jacobi (Hamilton-Jacobi equation) but still made it compatible with classical mechanics. No one ever guessed about possibility of quantization - Plank essentially invented quantization to fit the experimental result of Kirchoff on black body radiation. Again seemingly small and unimportant result preceded the major theoretical modification. 

4.Replacement of liquid-drop model of nucleus to nuclear shell model [3]. After the discovery of the protons and neutrons the most obvious model widely accepted by theoreticians was liquid-drop model of nucleus. Indeed, the empirical introduction of some of the parameters like surface tension and strong force parameters allowed nicely fit numerous observations like elongated shape of the nucleus due to presence of "surface tension" [4] and predicted/explained fission. However, the seemingly not so important properties like hyperfine splitting in electron paramagnetic resonance (and existence of magnetic moment of some but not all nuclei as confirmed by nuclear magnetic resonance) allowed to confirm the presence of "magic numbers" in nuclei and thus lead to shift to shell model. 

5.Discovery of fission itself (with nuclear and hydrogen bomb invention) started from seemingly small experiment made by Fermi (nuclear transmutation, creation of isotopes 93 and 94) [5], which was initially interpreted as the simple addition of neutron to the nucleus present (quite an obvious explanation, reasonable from what was known at that time). It turned out that the original explanation was incorrect (Ida Noddack created correct one) and Otto Hanh following the correct explanation managed to discover the fission. This time it was a little more complicated that simple experiment shifting the theoreticians attention, but after all the experiment preceded bomb idea, no theoretician before Hanh would even think about such possibility. 

Again and again the powerful push forward in fundamental physics was initiated by seemingly small and unimportant experimental discovery but not by application of more developed theory based on first principles already known.  This contradiction has an unpleasant explanation - Nature is more inventive than theoreticians may perceive. At the present moment many theoreticians are developing different explanations to the James Webb Space Telescope data (like discovery of little red dots) but they all still in the same general direction - this is about space-time (inflation of space at the very beginning, primordial black holes, super-Eddington accretion, fluctuations during Big Bang created temperature pattern of microwave background and many other ideas - they all about space-time, its distortion, history, fluctuations, other properties).  History hints they are all wrong. It seems that physics is waiting for some small crucial experimental result which would be "orthogonal" to all theory knew and may imagine.

References.

1.BCS theory - Wikipedia

2.Plum pudding model - Wikipedia

3.Nuclear shell model - Wikipedia

4.The Discovery of Nuclear Fission | Jeremy Bernstein | Inference

5.Discovery of nuclear fission - Wikipedia

Static Universe and cosmological constant - back to original Einstein equation with empirical cosmological constant. Light matter absorbs light, heats, generates pressure and holds galaxies from coalescence.

        Since the observation of the light scattering by the unknown yet mechanism [1] the idea of interacting with light ultrasmall particles appeared as a possible solution to accelerated rotation of galaxies ("dark matter problem") [2]. How that matter may help to solve the old problem of Static Universe - why gravity is not forcing all the galaxies to coalesce? 

        Big Bang seems to be falling apart: too many galaxies, too early, too many gigantic black holes, old galaxies are way too early and even the shape of primordial galaxies as observed by James Webb Space Telescope is wrong [3]. The return to static Universe needs a solution of many problems which were always present in cosmology. While the idea of recycling of energy may solve the problem of enormous age of static Universe [4], the problem still present - why at the very long time of existence Universe is not clumped back into some gigantic super-galaxy? 

        The answer may be connected with described in [2] undiscovered yet matter which presumably scatter the light to the equilibrium Bose gas with weak interaction (according to Bogolubov, the weakly interacting Bose-gas with non-conserved number of particles will demonstrate exactly Bose-Einstein distribution with exactly zero chemical potential - Planks formula). The temperature of such light matter (light in both senses - ultra-small total energy in femto to pico eV range and interacting with light, visible through the light scattering) may be considered as much higher than photons temperature (similar in the hot plasma temperature of light electrons is much higher compare to lower temperature of heavy ions). The distribution of those particles is unknown (they may be fermions) but they certainly will have pressure. This pressure assuming how many of those particles is present on the outskirts of the galaxies [2] seems to be enough to prevent gravitational collapse of galaxies thus keeping the Universe in equilibrium.

       And the best way to describe this static Universe is actually going back to the original Einstein equation [5] as it was introduced in 1917 with cosmological constant being empirical term which describes approximately that pressure. Original Einstein idea was absolutely correct - the best approximation of Universe is static Universe, and original cosmological constant prevents it from coalescing. The exact nature of this empirical term was, of course, unknown at Einstein time, and possibly with further research in this static Universe it will be modified into several terms.

       In previous posts before the light scattering on James Webb Space Telescope was so clearly visible, I considered a different mechanism for accelerated rotations of galaxies - influence of gravitational dipoles of any particle including light [6]. This idea is still valid, but it seems that the contribution of this factor will be many orders of magnitude smaller compare to what is described in [2]. Only careful future experiments may find whether such gravitational dipole exists at all, while the light scattering is already observed by JWST.

References.

1.Tipikin: The higher Z, the stronger the effect of light scattering present in the supernova images. Supernova at Z=3.6 looks gigantic.

https://tipikin.blogspot.com/2025/01/the-higher-z-stronger-effect-of-light.html

2.Tipikin: Axionic dark matter possibility from light scattering demonstrated by JWST for high z objects.

https://tipikin.blogspot.com/2025/03/axionic-dark-matter-possibility-from.html

3.Tipikin: Circular and irregular shape of record-breaking galaxies observed by JWST hints onto the much larger distance between them and Earth. Thus again supporting the idea of light scattering and tired light instead of Big Bang.

https://tipikin.blogspot.com/2025/03/circular-and-irregular-shape-of-record.html

4.Tipikin: Energy-matter cycle (aka water cycle on Earth) instead of Big Bang idea. How energy is converted back to matter.

https://tipikin.blogspot.com/2022/04/energy-matter-cycle-aka-water-cycle-on.html

5.Cosmological constant - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

6.2207.0131v1.pdf

https://vixra.org/pdf/2207.0131v1.pdf

Circular and irregular shape of record-breaking galaxies observed by JWST hints onto the much larger distance between them and Earth. Thus again supporting the idea of light scattering and tired light instead of Big Bang.

     The marvel of modern astrophysics, James Webb Space Telescope is making discovery after discovery and many of them puzzles the astrophysicists. Too many galaxies too early (according to Big Bang time line), little red dots with impossible velocities of gas near supermassive black hole (and such a black hole itself is too early for the young Universe etc.). While JWST already made several discoveries of galaxies at Z=13 and even 14, they all looks a little strange - all looks like circles, not even one has a classical oval shape (both spiral and elliptical galaxies at low resolution must be ovals). There is very low probability that all record-breaking galaxies are spirals observed at almost perpendicular to plane angle (that would make it looking perfect circle. 

     The explanation seems obvious - resolution of telescope is limited and by no means may JWST see details below its diffraction limit - approximately 3*10exp(-7) radian for wavelength of 2 um [1]. However, there is a problem here. Since according to Big Bang theory at high Z the difference at the observed distance with Z will be smaller and smaller, those galaxies are virtually all at the same distance of around 13 billions of light years. Even galaxy with Z=7 is actually 12.9 billions of light years away from us [2] - no real difference from the point of view of resolution of telescope. In order to evaluate the change of resolution from telescope to telescope, it is necessary first to see the galaxies at relatively high Z recorded by the predecessor of JWST - Hubble space telescope. Of course due to smaller mirror and absence of mid-IR capabilities it can not see galaxies at Z=13 and up (with some exceptions) but since galaxies with z=7-9 are almost at the same observational distance (~13 billions of light years if Big Bang is accepted) the comparison may be fair. The picture below is taken from [3] and the galaxies on photo are all with verified Z~8, and galaxies number 1,2,3,5 are looking like ovals.

It is easy to see, that Hubble Telescope indeed made photos of galaxies which looked as they should be - despite some of them are almost circles, many are ovals and even elongated ovals. Those galaxies if believe to Big Bang are all at ~13 billions of light years away. 

James Webb Space Telescope has larger mirror and thus must have better resolution (approximately 3 times better). It is clearly observed in the nearby Universe (say for Z~1). But since the galaxies at Z=12,13, 14 and up are almost at the same distance as galaxies at Z=8, JWST must deliver much better resolution of those galaxies (3 times better) and must see normal galaxies shapes (not dull circles all over again). Yet the discovery after discovery delivers the galaxies which looks like plain circle or irregular circle. The examples are: galaxy at Z=13 [4]

Galaxy at Z=14 [5]

Another galaxy at Z=13 [6]:

Another example of 4 galaxies all at the distance of ~13 billions of light years and all looking like circles [7]:

Sometimes galaxy with high Z has the elongated shape but it is situated in the field of strong lensing (so obviously distorted by lensing) [8]:

No improvement in resolution may be seen in resolution, despite from Big Bang idea they all are at approximately the same distance (around 13 billions of light years) as well as galaxies with Z~8 which are observed more or less normal already by Hubble telescope. Compare to the enormous improvement in resolution (Hubble made photos for upper row and JWST is for lower row) for galaxy cluster at Z~0.4 [9]:

Even assuming for high Z Hubble space telescope made pictures at central frequency around 1.6 um versus 2 um for James Webb Space Telescope (resolution is 1.25 worse for wavelength of 2 um compare to 1.6 um) the improvement in resolution still should be at least (6.5/2.4)*(1.6/2.0)=2.167 times (provided the Big Bang is correct, no light scattering is allowed and galaxies are at approximately the same distance of ~13 billions of light years). But obviously JWST only provides enormous improvement only at relatively low Z, not at high Z.

On the contrary, if the tired light hypothesis is accepted [10] situation changes dramatically. Now the distances for Z~14 would be much larger (Z~1 corresponds to ~10 billions of light years, Z=3 corresponds to ~20 billions of light years, Z=7 corresponds to ~30 billions of light years and Z=15 corresponds to ~40 billions of light years), so it is obvious that galaxies at high Z may be resolved poorer and it would need many hundreds of hours of accumulation to get the spectra (and that time must be almost the same in the case of Big Bang is right). Even more, the inevitable light scattering [10] will make the far galaxies blurred to the extent they may be only seen as a circle (and this circle is only having information about the light scattering properties, not initial galaxy oval view) [10,11]

It seems that even visual appearance of galaxies at high Z hints toward the paradigm shift from Big Bang cosmology to tired light cosmology. Both standard objects like supernovae at high Z (already visible at Z=3.6 and JWST is continuing the search) and non-standard objects like galaxies hints toward this decision. (The galaxies may theoretically be visible as circles because in principle it is possible from point of view of Big Bang that galaxies at Z=13-14 are so primordial, that the shape is essentially spherical cloud, so the shape must be visible as circle only). The spectra from those high Z galaxies however show a good content of oxygen, which means that stars already experienced many supernova events and galaxy shape is also expected to be one of the few standard ones. 

References.

1.Tipikin: The higher Z, the stronger the effect of light scattering present in the supernova images. Supernova at Z=3.6 looks gigantic.

https://tipikin.blogspot.com/2025/01/the-higher-z-stronger-effect-of-light.html

2.Galaxy Color and Redshift Chart » Talk — Zooniverse

https://www.zooniverse.org/talk/1268/576934

3.Yoshiaki Ono, Masami Ouchi et all "Evolution of the sizes of galaxies over 7<Z<12 revealed by the 2012 Hubble Ultra Deep Field Campaign" // The Astrophysical Journal, Vol.777 155, No2, 2013

DOI 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/155

EVOLUTION OF THE SIZES OF GALAXIES OVER 7 < z < 12 REVEALED BY THE 2012 HUBBLE ULTRA DEEP FIELD CAMPAIGN - IOPscience

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/155

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/155/pdf

4.Witnessing the onset of reionization through Lyman-α emission at redshift 13 | Nature

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08779-5

5.Photometric detection at 7.7 microns of a galaxy beyond redshift 14 with JWST/MIRI

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.18462

6.Big Bang-era galaxy found with JWST? | Popular Science

https://www.popsci.com/science/big-bang-galaxy-james-webb-space-telescope/

7.Record distant galaxy confirmed with the James Webb Space Telescope - Cosmic Dawn Center

https://cosmicdawn.dk/news/record-distant-galaxy-confirmed-with-the-james-webb-space-telescope/

8.Second-most distant galaxy discovered using James Webb Space Telescope | Penn State University

https://www.psu.edu/news/eberly-college-science/story/second-most-distant-galaxy-discovered-using-james-webb-space-telescope

9.JWST takes a peek at the first ever galaxies | astrobites

https://astrobites.org/2022/09/03/jwst-takes-a-peek-at-the-first-ever-galaxies/

10.D.S.Tipikin "Tired light hypothesis possibly got confirmation by direct observation of light scattering"

2311.0060v1.pdf

https://vixra.org/pdf/2311.0060v1.pdf

Axionic dark matter possibility from light scattering demonstrated by JWST for high z objects.

 The light scattering is observed by JWST through blurring of far galaxies at z~10-14 [1], through 2-4 times larger than diffraction limit of telescope supernovas [2] and through analysis of little red dots [3]. In [1,3] the empirical formulas are discussed which depict the light scattering and it was possible to come to the conclusion that the energy loss on each step is proportional to energy (key assumption) with coefficient α=2*10exp(-12). From that coefficient it is clear that the particles scattering light are enormously light with approximate evaluations of total energies of femto to pico eV (only for such light particles the energy loss of say green photon would be so small as it is necessary). Heavier particles like today approximation of axions as particles with micro-eV total energies will drain the energy of photon much faster and thus created too strong scattering which is not observed. 

However, application of quantum mechanics general ideas will allow to evaluate the properties of such "dark matter" (better be called almost completely transparent matter, because it is after all interacting with light). For total energy of 10exp(-15) eV the energy expressed in Joules would be 1.6*10exp(-31) Joule, for total energy of 10exp(-15) eV the energy expressed in Joules would be 1.6*10exp(-34) Joules. The effective mass may be estimated using the relation E=m*c² (the relativistic mass, because such particles is moving with speed very close to c). For pico-eV particle it is 1.78*10exp(-48) kg, for femto-eV particle it is 1.78*10exp(-51) kg. The pulse may be calculated using E=p*c relation: for pico-eV particle the pulse is 5.33*10exp(-40) kg*m/s and for femto-eV particle the pulse is 5.33*10exp(-43) kg*m/s. Since pulse is known the important characteristic of the particle - de-Broglie wavelength may be easily found λ=h/p   here h is Planck constant. For pico-eV particle de-Broglie wavelength is 1.24*10exp(6) meters and for femto-eV particle it is 1.24*10exp(9) meters (1/3 of Earth to Moon distance). 

For such enormously large de-Broglie wavelength no doubt the light is not interacting with the particle easily, the cross-section of the interaction may be evaluated as the square of diameters of "particle" size. For photon it would be wavelength (500 nm for green photon) and for particle which scatters light it is de-Broglie wavelength. Then the cross-section for pico-eV particle would be [500*10exp(-9)/1.24*10exp(6)]²=1.6*10exp(-35) and for feemto-eV particle it would be 1.6*10exp(-41). 

How frequently the photon is scattered on the route from supernova to the Earth to have the scattering parameter of 2*10exp(-12)? From the formulas outlined in [1] and assuming for z=1 supernova the distance between the star and Earth of 7.731 light years (7.314*10exp(25) meter) we may have: after N scatterings

E_N/E_o=1/(1+z)=(1-α)^N   ln(1/(1+z))=ln(0.5)=N*ln(1-α)~-N*α

and N=3.47*10exp(11) for the distance traveled of 7.314*10exp(25) meters. Therefore the average distance traveled between the interactions is L=2.16*10exp(14) meter (approximately 8.33 light-days). 

In order to evaluate the mass density of such axionic dark matter the assumption is as follows: during the travel of 8.33 days the effective volume of the photon has covered is V= π*λ²/4*L , here λ is the wavelength of the light  and the mass of the axions in this volume is mass of one axion divided by the cross-section (because it is necessary to meet enormous amount of axions to interact with only one of them). V=42.4 cubic meters and mass density is 2.62*10exp(-15) kg/cubic meter for pico-eV particles and 2.62*10exp(-12) kg/cubic meter for femto-eV particles. 

This value is comparable to the interstellar visible matter (mainly protons) of 1.67*10exp(-15) kg/cubic meter [4], less than the total mass density of Milky Way (2*10exp(-10) kg/cubic meter [5]) and  larger than the calculated mass density of dark matter in the halo around Milky Way (0.2-0.4 GeV per cubic cm [6]) which would be 3.55-7.1*10exp(-22) kg/cubic meter. 

The values obtained are reasonable and interestingly, the axionic dark matter interacting with light will be looking close to what astronomers are expecting - it must form halo. Because the particles are interacting with photons and so light, they are virtually pushed away by any photons (even microwave ones) from the stars, away from galaxy (full of photons) but due to some gravitational interaction they can not really lost the galaxy completely. They are indeed forming the halo around galaxy (and even more so pronounced halo around galaxy clusters) - an exactly as it is expected from gravitational consideration of light bending and too fast galaxy rotation. The estimated value of the mass density of those particles from light scattering is also reasonable - not really small and not enormously large (the distribution of them in halo is a separate and very difficult problem). However, the enormously small effective mass of them (energy of pico to femto eV) deemed the possibility of detection of them on Earth virtually impossible - they are sweeped out of Solar system by photons. Unless they are generated in the Sun itself (and in this case the stream of them directly from Sun similar to neutrinos stream is expected) they are only be possible to research using the light scattering from far-far stars, supernovas and galaxies. 

References.

1. Tired light hypothesis possibly got confirmation by direct observation of light scattering

(PDF) Tired light hypothesis possibly got confirmation by direct observation of light scattering

2.Tipikin: The higher Z, the stronger the effect of light scattering present in the supernova images. Supernova at Z=3.6 looks gigantic.

3.Tipikin: Little red dots and brown dwarfs – demonstration of the light scattering by point-like objects.

4.Interstellar medium - Wikipedia

5.What's the theoretical maximum density of a galaxy? - Astronomy Stack Exchange

6.Determination of the local dark matter density in our Galaxy | Astronomy & Astrophysics (A&A)