Light scattering observed on supernova type 1A - no "dark energy", the Hubble findings should be re-analysed.

 In a recent publication [1] the only so far discovered by JWST supernova type 1A  at z=2.9 (confirmed by spectroscopy [2]) was successfully plotted on the famous plot magnitude versus red shift, well known from Hubble telescope time and considered as a proof of the discovery of the "dark energy" [3]. The plot is shown below:

The fact that this supernova fits so well the previous plot does not support the idea of "dark energy" or "accelerated expansion of Universe", but instead demonstrates that the original explanation of the deviation from straight line was completely wrong. This is not a space-time problem (the "expansion" rate changes), but much more trivial phenomenon - the light itself is not ideal and for billions of years of propagation (more than 10 billions for z>1) starts to be scattered a little. The visible angular size of the supernova type 1a (very standard one, all the properties are well known) is at least 6 times larger than it should be for point source (see [4]), well above any errors or uncertainties. 

Why this is so important is shown below:

The fact that high z supernovae with visibly clearly seen much larger than it should be angular sizes [5] are so well fit on the old plot is the confirmation of the fact that in reality the light scattering was observed even at Hubble telescope time, it was merely completely wrongly interpreted. In this sense the observations of JWST are completely consistent with Hubble telescope findings, but additional information obtained due to much higher resolution points onto the necessity to carefully re-interpret the old data and theories. Most probably "dark energy" and even "Big Bang" are not real, just the temporal fit of the incomplete data.

References.

1.Josef Vinko, Eniko Regos "SN 2023adsy - a normal Type 1a Supernova at z=2.9, discovered by JWST" // Published in Arxiv, jades_Ia_numbers_30.eps or https://arxiv.org/pdf/2411.10427

2.J.D.R.Pierel at all // Published in Arxiv, 2406.05089 or https://arxiv.org/pdf/2406.05089

3.D.S.Tipikin "Tired light hypothesis and "accelerated expansion of Universe"-no need for dark energy"// 

Tipikin: Tired light hypothesis and "accelerated expansion of Universe" - no need for dark energy.

https://tipikin.blogspot.com/2024/05/tired-light-hypothesis-and-accelerated.html

4. D.S.Tipikin "Comparison of angular sizes of two supernovae (one is relatively close and one is relatively far) confirms the fact that James Webb space telescope has a very good resolution and light is scattered indeed for high z objects" //

Tipikin: Comparison of angular sizes of two supernovas (one is relatively close and one is relatively far) confirms the fact that James Webb space telescope has a very good resolution and light is scattered indeed for high z objects

https://tipikin.blogspot.com/2024/06/comparison-of-angular-sizes-of-two.html

Or on Researchgate and Vixra:

(PDF) Comparison of angular sizes for supernovas at z=0.151 and z=2.9 confirms the great resolution of JWST and confirms the presence of the light scattering. Tired light formula fits the angular size of standard object like supernova surprisingly well on all distances.

2406.0162v1.pdf or https://vixra.org/pdf/2406.0162v1.pdf

5.D.S.Tipikin "Supernovae large angular size due to light scattering for high z is clearly seen at multiple JWST images" //

Tipikin: Supernova's large angular size due to light scattering for high z is clearly seen at multiple JWST images.

https://tipikin.blogspot.com/2024/08/supernovas-large-angular-size-due-to.html

Time-dilation for supernova in the case of tired light hypothesis.

 Abstract.

One of the most important confirmation of the Big Bang theory was the discovery of the time broadening of the light curve of the far supernovas (supernovas 1A, standard candles, at the distances around Z=1). From straightforward consideration in the complete absence of light scattering it can not be explained in any other way but by Doppler-like effect which in this case called time dilation and seemingly confirming the Big Bang. However, the hypothesis of tired light [1] also allows the light being diffusion-like scattered on travel from supernova thus allowing change in distance traveled and allowing corresponding time broadening of the light curve (the fastest photons goes straight path, later arrived those which due to multiple scattering – diffusion-like in perpendicular direction – first traveled away from direct line, than returned back, possible many times and thus got a big enough increase in distance to generate perceptible – few days- delays at arrival). Problem with this mechanism is that gives  smaller time delays compare to time dilation directly observed [1]. The gravitational microlensing may be involved  and due to additional change of distance, Shapiro effect and brightening some parts of the image of supernova (3 separate effects)  will make the light curves broader and thus explaining the time dilation observed.

Introduction.

Discovery of the time broadening of the supernova type 1A (standard candle) light curves was instantly interpreted as a proof of the Doppler time dilation (the processes seems slower as a factor 1+z because the objects are moving away faster and faster as they are further from Earth). Indeed, up to z~1 (the best Hubble may do in supernova discoveries) the broadening of the light curve (time dilation) follows this simple law (broadening~1+z) and it was considered as a final confirmation of Big Bang. However, time dilation is also possible in tired light theory (the photons experience diffusion-like process and some will arrive few days later compare to the ones traveled the straight path). The real difference between the time dilation as inferred from Big Bang Theory or from diffusion-like tired light approach will be revealed at z~3 (and supernovas with z~3 are already detected by James Webb Space Telescope, so the complete light curve measurement may be on its way right now). This is because according to Doppler-like time dilation the law 1+z will persist and at z~3 the time dilation would be 4 times compare to z=0 (the light curve width for supernova type 1A must be around 100 days instead of usual 24 days at z=0); while for tired light the effect will be much smaller (light scattering quickly saturates with z [2]) and width should be only ~40-50 days (more than 2 times narrower). The difference between ~100 days and ~40 days is huge and for higher Z it will be even larger – while the supernovas at z~12 in Big Bang cosmology must shine bright around 260 days (more than half a year) the  same supernovas for tired light idea will shine for ~60 days (see how fast the scattering curve saturates in [2]). Obviously if the time dilation will follow 1+z law up to those  high z the Big Bang will be fully confirmed and any tired light hypothesis completely eliminated. Interestingly this observation is due in very close future – JWST is actually observing some supernovas at z=3.8 already [3] and this is only the beginning. But for right now it is necessary to explain how tired light may explain already observed time dilation for supernovas with z~1.

Main part.

               The light curves of the supernovas are measured a lot, but for the further supernovas some unexpected factors may contribute to the width and make the curve broader what looks like time dilation. It may be influence of gravitational lensing on  a scale smaller than generate the resolved multiple images (so called microlensing), with corresponding Shapiro effect and strong influence of the wavelength of the image taking detector since the light curve at one frequency is not the same as light curve for different light color (and red shift at high z makes it even more complex problem, it is necessary to recalculate light curve at different wavelengths back to z=0). It may happened that the time dilation is a result of multiple factors, which working together make the light curve broader than it is.

               At first, the supernovas type 1A are not completely standard. They may be broadly divided into brighter ones and dimmer ones [4]. Because of the range of white dwarfs leading to explosion, some supernovas type 1A are brighter and some are dimmer (but both are type 1A because of spectroscopic features). What is very important for time dilation the brighter supernovas type1A are fading slower (not very much but well resolved by the light curves). Since the brighter supernovas are easier to spot at the high z (for Hubble supernovas at  z=1 are already approaching the limit of detection), the far supernovas have a selection bias toward the broader light curve.

               Another important difference between the  modern model of the light propagation (no light scattering is allowed) and tired light hypothesis is in the way the light propagating from supernova experiences gravitational bending. The real size of supernova type 1A at the moment of the maximum brightness (they usually discovered around this moment)  is relatively small compare to typical interstellar distances (distance Sun to Alpha Centauri is 3.8*10exp(16) meters). The real size of supernova is only 2-3 light days at maximum brightness - something like 3-4.6*10exp(13) meters [3] (just around 50 times larger than the giant red stars with size up to 10exp(12) meters [5]). For this small size the beam without light scattering may be bent by gravitational lensing but as a whole (the right and left parts of the beam are experiencing the same path and the same time delay both Shapiro effect and geometrical).

Due to the presence of microlensing the real image of the supernova at Z=1 and beyond would be consisting of many very small dots (provided the resolution of the telescope is 100 times better than Hubble). This is because the smaller masses (compare to strong gravitational lensing which generates visible Einstein cross) will generate many Einstein crosses but they all blurred together due to lack of the resolution. Interestingly the time dilation may be actually observed even in the case of the absence of light scattering and absence of Big Bang (no Doppler-like effect is necessary) – because the already observed Einstein crosses are demonstrating huge difference in time of arrival of light for 4 different images (up to 180 days) and possibly smaller, hardly resolved Einstein crosses will give the time difference comparable to the observed time broadening of the supernova light curves (if Einstein cross is not resolved, all four images will give actually one but photons from different paths arrive at different time, the observed light curve is actually of sum of 4 light curves time shifted with respect to each other – it will inevitably be time broadened).

               In [6] the excellent example of hardly resolved Einstein cross is shown with lensing galaxy much weaker than the supernova images:

If the resolution of the telescope would be just a little worse, this supernova would looks like one image. But it would be actually consisting of 4 overlapped images with different times of arrival and thus the observed light curve would be much broader than each of the constituents. One of the explanations of the supernovas huge visible angular sizes [7] (up to 6 times larger than diffraction limit of the telescope at z=3 as observed by JWST) which preserves the Big Bang is exactly this one – the real image is merely the superposition of multiple Einstein crosses due to weak gravitational lensing (unresolved because the  resolution of JWST is limited). In this case however the time broadening of light curves (seemingly confirming Big Bang due to Doppler like effect) must be even more pronounced – first because of Doppler effect (proportional to 1+Z) and second due to overlapping of different images which have different paths and Shapiro effects (proportional roughly to sqrt(Z)) – in total the time broadening of light curves would be so big that the supernovas already at z=3-4 would shine for many months. Such enormously large time dilation may be already dismissed – even preliminary images of JWST (for z~3) made with time separation of months are not showing such ultra-persistent supernovas.

               The last effect which may contribute the most (Shapiro effect is of course present but usually considered as being around 10% of the time delay due to elongated path) is the different brightness of the different constituents of unresolved Einstein cross. Indeed, this is easy to see on the picture above – no Einstein cross is ideal, usually one component is very bright and one is very dim. If the Einstein cross is unresolved, this may contribute strongly to the observed time broadening of the supernova making it very broad or very narrow (almost as narrow as without any gravitational lensing effect). It also is different for different wavelengths, making matter even more complicated. The great review on this topic is [8] where the effects of microlensing for supernovas at z~1 were estimated as leading to around 10-14 days difference in time broadening (actually enough to explain the “time dilation” for supernovas even without any Doppler-like effect).

This effect is mainly contributing to big scatter of the observed time dilations and should be averaged on multiple observations of supernovae. Unfortunately to make such a statistics even at z~1 thousands of supernovae are to be recorded with light curves (unbearable task even for Hubble plus Earth based telescopes). And for JWST so far only observations of the supernovae are made (and no reported light curve is measured).  Meanwhile this effect by accident may generate extremely broad in time light curve for supernova, seemingly confirming Big Bang, but in another accident may completely reject Doppler-like effect – the scattering of data may be big. Published data on light curves indeed confirmed the big scattering in observed “time dilations” for supernovae at z~1, but whether it is due to such brightness difference mechanism (of unresolved Einstein crosses) or due to inevitable experimental errors is not clear at this time.

Conclusion.

While the initial estimation of the time broadening of the light curve of supernova gave a smaller than necessary value (4.4 days instead of 20 [1]) if other effects are taken into consideration the tired light hypothesis may create big enough value. As it is a typical case in many complex scientific issues, only direct experiment may differentiate the Big Band and Tired Light in the question of “time dilation”. Big Bang and Doppler-like effect must generate at least 1+z time broadening (or may be even larger if microlensing and unresolved Einstein crosses are taken into the consideration), while Tired Light must generate much modest time broadening approximately like sqrt(z) (for more precise formula see [9]). Already for z~3-4 (actual supernovae observed by JWST in 2023-2024) the difference is huge and even with discussed brightness-generated errors should be easy to differentiate. This experiment (direct measurement of light curves for supernovae at z~3-4) may be considered as one of the simplest and possible at the present time (beginning of the 21^st century) ways to New Physics (for more proposals see [10-11]).

 

References.

1.D.S.Tipikin “Tired light hypothesis possibly got confirmation by direct observation of light scattering”

2311.0060v1.pdf (vixra.org)

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

2. Tipikin: Two galaxies (z=3.4 and z=14.32) are close together on the JWST image - one is sharp, one is blurred. One more direct confirmation of light scattering.

https://tipikin.blogspot.com/2024/08/two-galaxies-z34-and-z1432-are-close.html

3. Tipikin: Supernova's large angular size due to light scattering for high z is clearly seen at multiple JWST images.

https://tipikin.blogspot.com/2024/08/supernovas-large-angular-size-due-to.html

4. Standard-Candle Supernovae are Still Standard, but Why? - Berkeley Lab – Berkeley Lab News Center (lbl.gov)

5. Red giant stars: Facts, definition & the future of the sun | Space

6. A.Goobar, J.Johansson, A. Sagues Carracedo “Strongly lensed supernovae: lessons learned” // Philosophical Transactions A, 2024, 2406.13519, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2406.13519

7.D.S.Tipikin “Comparison of angular sizes for supernovas at z=0.151 and z=2.9 confirms the great resolution ofJWST and confirms the presence of the light scattering. Tired light formula fits the angular size of standard object like supernova surprisingly well on all distances.” // (PDF) Comparison of angular sizes for supernovas at z=0.151 and z=2.9 confirms the great resolution of JWST and confirms the presence of the light scattering. Tired light formula fits the angular size of standard object like supernova surprisingly well on all distances.

Or on Vixra: 2406.0162v1.pdf  ( https://vixra.org/pdf/2406.0162v1.pdf )

8. Daniel A. Goldstein, Peter E. Nugent, Daniel N. Kasen, Thomas E. Collett “Precise Time Delays from Strongly Gravitationally Lensed Type 1a Supernovae with Chromatically Microlensed Images” // 1708.00003 ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.00003 )

9.D.S.Tipikin “Two galaxies (z=3.4 and z=14.32) are close together on the JWST image - one is sharp, one is blurred. One more direct confirmation of light scattering.” – published on Blogspot,

Tipikin: Two galaxies (z=3.4 and z=14.32) are close together on the JWST image - one is sharp, one is blurred. One more direct confirmation of light scattering.

https://tipikin.blogspot.com/2024/08/two-galaxies-z34-and-z1432-are-close.html

10.D.S.Tipikin “The quest for new physics. An experimentalist approach” //  2011.0172v1.pdf ( https://vixra.org/pdf/2011.0172v1.pdf )

11. D.S.Tipikin  “Thee quest for new physics. An experimentalist approach. Vol.2” // 2212.0058v1.pdf ( https://vixra.org/pdf/2212.0058v1.pdf ).

 

 

 

 

 

Supernova at Z=2.83 - large angular size, smaller objects on the same image, relatively weak to completely exclude detector saturation - one more confirmation of light scattering

 To confirm the presence of the light scattering for the images of supernovas obtained by JWST the image of supernova was taken from [1]:

In this image supernova which must have the angular size comparable to the angular resolution of the telescope is clearly much larger. The possible experimental errors are excluded:

1.There is at least one 2.7 times sharper object on the image - it means that the telescope trembling during accumulation may be excluded - it would blur both objects equally.

2.Sometimes close supernovas are visible as very large dots (and with projectiles like in [2]) because of the extreme brightness: the detector is saturated and because of cross-talk between pixels on the camera the adjacent to saturated pixel other pixels will be bright like registering light (common problem with both CCD and CMOS cameras). Since the supernova is just a little brighter than the surrounding (and much less bright compare to the brightest stars on the image) this possible experimental error is not possible too.

Only new phenomena, light scattering at very high distances may explain this image of supernova at z=2.83 (z is confirmed by spectroscopy in [1])
    In addition to already published images this one again confirms the author point of view that light from the far galaxies and supernovas is scattered, thus removing need for dark energy and Big Bang (and confirming the tired light hypothesis)

References.

1.2406.05076 (arxiv.org)

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2406.05076

2.Supernova - Wikipedia

3.2311.0060v1.pdf (vixra.org)

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

Supernova's large angular size due to light scattering for high z is clearly seen at multiple JWST images.

 Supernovas are excellent source of light for investigation of galaxies far away from Earth as well as the excellent probe to discover new properties of light itself. This is because they are very bright and very standard (even if it is not type 1a standard candle, some properties are quite unique). The real size of supernova may be estimated from the well established fact that the maximum luminocity of it is reached at around 20-30 days after explosion (depending upon supernova type and time dilation at high z). The expelled by the explosion star is expanding at the velocity of around 0.03 speed of light [1] what gives the estimation for the diameter of supernova during the maximum brightness (at that moment they are usually discovered) as around 1.2-1.8 light days (3.1*10exp(13) to 4.6*10exp(13) meters). Despite this is much larger than the diameter of star (for example Sun has a diameter of 1.39*10exp(9) meters) the diameter of supernova is still way too small to be resolved at any distinquishable z  even with the best resolution space telescope. For example for JWST for wavelength of 2 um (F200W camera) the diffraction limit for the diameter of mirror of 6.5 m is 2*10exp(-6)//6.5=5.38*10exp(-7) rad. Supernova will be observed as exactly one dot in diffraction limit starting at distance of L=4.6*10exp(13)/5.38*10exp(-7)=8.6*10exp(19) meters or ~9000 light years (that would be very small z of 6.5*10exp(-7)). 

For already observed supernovas with Z>1 the angular size of it will be much smaller than the resolution of even very futuristic telescope. For example for Z=1 the distance is around 10 billions light years and the resolution necessary is around 5*10exp(-13) radian - 6 orders of magnitude better than JWST. By no means the image of supernova on the photo obtained by space telescope may be larger than exactly one dot in the sense of the diffraction limit of the telescope. The supernova is ultrabright and the angular size of the nearby supernova (like at z=0.004 in [2]) may be looking larger because of the saturation of the detector like in picture in [2] but in this case the obvious mark of saturation is present - the rays due to diffraction like from nearby star on Hubble or JWST. For supernovas at higher z and especially at z>1 the brightness of supernova is hardly enough to be registered (that is why only JWST was able to record multiple supernovas at z higher than 1) and by no means the saturation of the detector can influence the recorded angular size.

In the  following photo taken from [3] several supernovas discovered by JWST are shown.

What makes this image is so special is that on the same image close to supernova at z 2.845 and 3.8 the objects with clearly visible smaller size are present (for z=0.655 the smallest objects are have the size comparable to supernova size). But as it was shown by calculation in the case of the complete absence of light scattering the supernova must have the angular size equals to the diffraction limit of telescope (be of the size of the smallest dot on the picture). The only possibility for telescope to see the larger angular size of the supernova is the presence of the light scattering (so the enlarged angular size of supernova has nothing to do with it's real size, this is property of light itself). The objects of the smaller size are inevitable "trespasses" - much closer objects contaminate the image inevitably, like lone stars somewhere on the outskirts of Milky Way - way too far to be resolved even by JWST they will be observed as real diffraction limit dots. This is because according to tired light hypothesis the light scattering is visible only for high z, at the Milky Way or nearby galaxies it is completely unobservable [4,5].

While for relatively small z 0.655  (see also [5] for image with z=0.151) the size of supernova is well below the size of the center of galaxy (where all the stars are blurred together), for the higher Z images (2.845 and 3.8) the angular size of supernova is just a little smaller than the size of the galaxy center - the real size of the object in the absence of light scattering  would correspond to ~ 1000 light years (instead of ~ 2 light days), yet this is clearly just supernova because the object is not present on the similar photo taken with separation of one year. 

This observation clearly demonstrates that the light itself is responsible for the large angular size of supernovas at high z. The most probably explanation of this behavior is tired light phenomenon with more information outlined in [6].

References.

1.Supernova - Wikipedia

2.NGC 4526 - Wikipedia

3.Three JADES galaxies with supernovae (2023 vs. 2022) | ESA/Webb (esawebb.org)

https://esawebb.org/images/JADES8/

4.Tipikin: Two galaxies (z=3.4 and z=14.32) are close together on the JWST image - one is sharp, one is blurred. One more direct confirmation of light scattering.

5.Tipikin: Comparison of angular sizes of two supernovas (one is relatively close and one is relatively far) confirms the fact that James Webb space telescope has a very good resolution and light is scattered indeed for high z objects

6.2311.0060v1.pdf (vixra.org)

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

Analysis of the luminosity profile for little red dot confirms presence of image blurring and light scattering in the JWST images.

 In [1] the drastic similarities in images were shown between the close galaxies viewed by telescope from Earth (the image blurring by the light scattering in atmosphere is inevitably present) and galaxies at Z=10-14 viewed by the JWST (no blurring in the perfect vacuum was expected). Here the accurate analysis of the luminosity profile from the photo made by JWST and profile of the close galaxy is presented. For the analysis of the little red dot the galaxy described in [2] and usually referenced as RUBIES-EGS-49140 with z=6.68:

The profile along the radius is described on the plot by the blue dots and connecting blue line (the red line is an exponential fit commonly used in close galaxies with active nuclei [3]):

The radial profile of luminosity for the closest well resolved galaxies is well known and published in many articles (for example in [3] for NGC 4477 with active galactic nucleus - AGN):

The curve for close galaxy is nicely fit by exponential, but for the little red dot galaxy the curve more resembles Gaussian (and more probably it is a convolution of Gaussian and exponential curve, the so-called ex-Gaussian curve [4]). The appearance of Gaussian like center is exactly what is expected if the light scattering blurs the bright center with much darker outskirts of the galaxy, creating the appearance of huge red spot in the middle (see [1]). The Gaussian-like distribution (ex-Gaussian in this case due to overlap) is the very characteristic feature of some stochastic, diffusion-like process of scattering (always generating Gaussian curve because of laws of big numbers,  Central Limit Theorem from theory of probability [5] always leads to normal distribution). 

However, the telescope has a finite resolution and in this case the normal distribution is also expected. But for the filters used in [2] the wavelength corresponds to 2.7 um (F277) and the corresponding angular resolution of JWST would be 2.77*10exp(-6)/6.5=0.43*10exp(-6) radian. The central spot in the picture, however, has the angular size of 2.3*10exp(-6) radian - around 5 times larger (the picture of little red dot corresponds to 2"x2" angular size). It means that the resolution of telescope is good enough for the much better image of the galaxy and the blurring on the picture is not because of the quality of telescope but because of some unknown yet mechanism of scattering of light itself. That is what makes the little red dot looks surprisingly similar to each other and very different from the galaxies near Earth.
More accurate from mathematical point of view description of this anomaly emphasizes again the presence of the light scattering and allows more accurate correlation between the angle of scattering and distance expressed in red shift value of Z being plotted (see previous post [6]).

References.

1.D.S.Tipikin "Tired light hypothesis possibly got confirmation by direct observation of light scattering." // 2311.0060v1.pdf (vixra.org)

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

or (PDF) Tired light hypothesis possibly got confirmation by direct observation of light scattering (researchgate.net)

2.Bingjie Wang at all "RUBIES: Evolved Stellar Populations with Extended Formation Histories at z ∼ 7 − 8 in Candidate Massive Galaxies Identified with JWST/NIRSpec" // 2405.01473 (arxiv.org)

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.01473

3.Mengchun Tsai, Chorng-Yuan Hwang "Star formation in the central regions of active and normal galaxies" // STAR FORMATION IN THE CENTRAL REGIONS OF ACTIVE AND NORMAL GALAXIES (iop.org)

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-6256/150/2/43/pdf

4.Exponentially modified Gaussian distribution - Wikipedia

5.Central limit theorem - Wikipedia

6.Tipikin: Two galaxies (z=3.4 and z=14.32) are close together on the JWST image - one is sharp, one is blurred. One more direct confirmation of light scattering.

Two galaxies (z=3.4 and z=14.32) are close together on the JWST image - one is sharp, one is blurred. One more direct confirmation of light scattering.

 The described in several publications [1-3] light scattering directly observed by JWST must be visible everywhere - in supernova, in far galaxies, in light curves of supernova etc. One problem always remains: the telescope itself. Since the accumulation of image takes a lot of time, the telescope is trembling a little thus creating the inevitable blurring. If one object is close and brighter the accumulation time is obviously smaller compare to far galaxy with Z=13 so the added spread will be smaller and thus the light scattering may be explained as a trivial experimental artifact. The best confirmation of the reality of the light scattering would be the presence of two or more objects on the same image - one is close one is far. The recent discovery of the record breaking galaxy at Z=14.32 gives such an example. 

In this picture taken from [4] the recently discovered galaxy ID 183348 is shown to the right from a galaxy ID 183349 to the left (whiter false colors). Both galaxies have Z determined and galaxy to the left has z=3.4 while the galaxy to the right has a record z=14.32 [5]. The objects accidently are very close to each other on the image while in reality separated by billions of light years. It is clearly seen that the galaxy on the left have more sharper features compare to the galaxy to the right. The center of galaxy is clearly visible as one dot in diffraction limit while the center of galaxy with Z=14.32 obviously spread a lot and the whole galaxy looks very much like galaxies described in [1]. What is very important in this image is that both galaxies are recorded simultaneously and all the possible experimental artifacts are obviously exactly the same (no possible excuse is present that telescope changed resolution from image to image, the blurring of the far galaxy is very obvious). 

    Of course the far galaxy was photographed with different cameras (the longer wavelength the poorer resolution), but it is also possible to have the image from [6] where both galaxies are seen by the F277W camera (monochromatic image).

If both centers of galaxies are considered as point objects due to light scattering, the light scattering for the galaxy 183349 would corresponds to around 0.64*10exp(-7) radian while the center of the second galaxy would have the angular size of approximately 1.2*10exp(-6) radian. Both numbers are higher than the diffraction limit of the  telescope (for wavelength of 2.77 micrometer and mirror diameter of 6.5 it should be λ/D=0.426*10exp(-6) radian) and while trembling of the telescope may indeed make resolution poorer it must do it for both galaxies at the same time, yet closer galaxy obviously demonstrates sharper feature (center of the galaxy) compare to galaxy to the right. The only explanation is light scattering (even if right galaxy is much larger compare to left galaxy, because it is so much further according to z-shift in the absence of the light scattering it must be exactly one diffraction dot - whether 0.426*10exp(-6) radian or 0.64*10exp(-6) radian if telescope is trembling a little for long accumulation). By no means it may have larger angular size like it was found. The correct interpretation would be that galaxy ID 183348 on the right is quasar directed toward the Earth by accident (that is why the galaxy is so bright to be visible at all) and in the complete absence of the light scattering would have the angular size of exactly one dot in diffraction limit. This one is actually a little red dot galaxy, but because of the light scattering presence only looks larger (the record high z value presumes larger light scattering).

If the objects like little red dots, already observed supernovas and galaxies with active galactic nuclei (at high z only center is visible [1]) are all being considered as point-like objects, the dependence of light scattering angle from the z value may be plotted on one graph.

In this plot the curve is created from the formulas outlined in [1]:

Angle=sqrt(N)*α, E_n/E_o=(1-α)^N, α=2.01*10exp(-12)

and the direct dependence of angle from z would be, since E_n/E_o=1/(1+z)

Angle=sqrt[2*10exp(-12)*ln(1+z)]

However, since only 1/3 of all photons are scattered along any given direction (another 1/3 is in the perpendicular direction and another 1/3 is in the direction of light traveling) [this simple approach is for evaluation purpose only, the integration is necessary for more accurate result, similar to molecular physics] the formula should be adjusted for 1/sqrt(3):

Angle=sqrt[2*10exp(-12)*ln(1+z)]/sqrt(3)

And this curve is plotted. Experimental points are scattered a lot but it is visible that the angle of observation of point-like objects grows first quickly than slower as z increases. Approximately this behavior is observed by JWST. As far as exact fit of the light scattering present, it would be necessary to create more advanced theory of the tired light [1-3]

References.

1.D.S.Tipikin "Tired light hypothesis possibly got confirmation by direct observation of light scattering" // 2311.0060v1.pdf (vixra.org) or 

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

2.D.S.Tipikin "Supernova type 1a at z=2.9 image is dramatically changed by light scattering - the third direct confirmation of tired light theory" // 2406.0053v2.pdf (vixra.org) or

(PDF) Supernova type 1a at z=2.9 demonstrates light scattering directly version 2 (researchgate.net)

3.D.S.Tipikin "Comparison of angular sizes for supernovas at z=0.151 and z=2.9 confirms the great resolution of JWST and confirms the presence of the light scattering. Tired light formula fits the angular size of standard object like supernova surprisingly well on all distances" // 2406.0162v1.pdf (vixra.org) 

(PDF) Comparison of angular sizes for supernovas at z=0.151 and z=2.9 confirms the great resolution of JWST and confirms the presence of the light scattering. Tired light formula fits the angular size of standard object like supernova surprisingly well on all distances. (researchgate.net)

4.James Webb discovers record-distant galaxy, again - Cosmic Dawn Center

5.Brant Robertson at all.

[2312.10033] Earliest Galaxies in the JADES Origins Field: Luminosity Function and Cosmic Star-Formation Rate Density 300 Myr after the Big Bang (arxiv.org)   

page 16 of the pdf file.

6.Jakob M. Halton at all.

2405.18462 (arxiv.org)

Comparison of angular sizes of two supernovas (one is relatively close and one is relatively far) confirms the fact that James Webb space telescope has a very good resolution and light is scattered indeed for high z objects

 

Abstract.

As it was shown in [1] the blurred images of the far galaxies (for z well above 10) confirmed the presence of the undiscovered yet mechanism of light scattering and makes strong hint toward the tired light theory instead of Big Bang. The idea was applied to the more close and well researched objects like supernovas with similar success [2,3]. In this publication I compare the angle size of two supernovas (one is close, one is relatively far) to demonstrate that light scattering is not due to telescope itself (the close supernova has a size close to the diffraction limit, as expected) but due to the presence of the light scattering very slowly accumulated as light propagates toward Earth and finally directly observed (the far supernova has the angle size many times the diffraction limit, what means that telescope has a great resolution power and the effect of light scattering is real). Fitting with the simple formula outlined in [1] gives surprisingly good accuracy for both cases.

Introduction.

The problems Big Bang encountered after launch of JWST are so numerous now, that the search for the alternative theory is underway. The most researched competitor is tired light theory, which is modified for the case of very small interactions in [1] (so billions and trillions of small scattering events are necessary to have observable change in position of spectra). In [1] formulas are derived for the angular size of scattered light and red shift as a function of z observed. In [2,3] this approximation is applied for the much more standard object like supernova type 1a and again the direct observation of the light scattering is confirmed. In this publication the comparison of close and far supernovas is made to eliminate the possibility of the experimental error (telescope is not as good as expected and light scattering is not real, but rather the experimental artifact).

Main part.

               In [4] the observation of the supernova for the small z is published with excellent pictures:

It is easy to measure the angular size of the supernova at z=0.151 reported in [4] since the ruler is placed directly on the image: for JWST camera F200W (center wavelength is 2 um [5]) the angle is 0.111” (arcseconds) or 5.38*10exp(-7) rad. Evaluation of the diffraction limit of the James Webb Space Telescope is according to famous formular resolution=λ/D, where λ is the wavelength of the observation (in our case 2 um) and D is the diameter of the main mirror of the telescope (in our case 6.5 m). According to this formula the resolution would be 2*10exp(-6)/6.5=3*10exp(-7). Indeed the size of supernova is close to the diffraction limit as it is mentioned in [4] (“a clear point source is detected at the location of GRB 221009A”).

               Evaluation of the angular size of the object using the formulas from [1] gives:

Angle=sqrt(N)*α, E_n/E_o=(1-α)^N, α=2.01*10exp(-12)

Here N is number of scatterings for tired light hypothesis (extremely big number), α is the parameter of relative energy loss at each event (usual for tired light hypothesis formula ΔE/E=-α*E is used), En is the energy of photon after N scattering, E_o is the initial energy of photon just emitted, and Angle is mean deviation of the angle of the light propagation due to scattering (diffusion-like approach in the perpendicular to light propagation direction and ideal chain approximation are used, see [1]).

Calculations for z=0.151 yield:

E_n/E_o=1/(1+z), N*ln(1-α)=ln(1/1.151), N=0.1406/2.01*10exp(-12)=7*10exp(10)

Angle=sqrt(7)*10*exp(5)*2.01*10exp(-12)=5.32*10exp(-7)

Which is in surprisingly excellent agreement with the measured value of 5.38*10exp(-7) – this is of course by pure accident because the values are so close to the diffraction limit. Yet it emphasizes the simple fact – JWST is well tuned and delivers images with the resolution exactly as expected, no bad experimental problems here.

               As far as second supernova at z=2.9 is concerned the image was published in [6]:

The visible diameter of the supernova type 1a is around 0.35 arcsecond, which would correspond to 1.70*10exp(-6) rad, that is around 5.7 times higher than the diffraction limit (note, that the same camera F200W is used in both cases, so the comparison is fair). The same calculations as above yield:

Angle=α*sqrt(N);  1/(1+z)=(1-α)^N, α=2*10exp(-12) from [1]

for z=2.9 we have: N=0.68*10exp(12)

Angle=2*10exp(-12)*0.825*10exp(6)=1.65*10exp(-6)

Which is very close to the calculated angle of scattering of 1.7*10exp(-6) and much higher than it should be from diffraction limit perspective (well above any possible error).

               No physical mechanism may be responsible for supernova having so big real size (size of small, not dwarf, galaxy [3]). Only light scattering may be responsible, the property of the information carrier itself, not the object under investigation. On the opposite, the further the supernova, the smaller the angular size it should have (and because of the diffraction limit of the telescope, all supernovas except for very close with z~0 must be presented exactly by one dot in diffraction sense). Any observed resolution means the light scattering is present which in turn means that the Big Bang theory should be re-analyzed again -so great would be the tired light hypothesis fitting numerous observation data. 

Conclusion.

In addition to the blurred images of far galaxies the observation of the supernovas (well researched object with many standard features present) confirms once again the tired light hypothesis (great accuracy of the fit of the experimentally observed angle size is achieved) and disproves Big Bang Theory.

References.

1. D.S.Tipikin “Tired light hypothesis possibly got confirmation by direct observation of light scattering.”  // 2311.0060v1.pdf (vixra.org)

2. D.S.Tipikin   Tired Light Hypothesis Got Second Direct Confirmation from Supernova Light Curve, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2405.0154

2405.0154v1.pdf (vixra.org)

3. D.S.Tipikin “Supernova type 1a at z=2.9 image is dramatically changed by light scattering – the third direct confirmation of tired light theory.”

2406.0053v2.pdf (vixra.org)

4.Peter K. Blanchard et all “JWST detection of a supernova associated with GRB 221009A without an r-process signature”// Nature Astronomy,  Volume 8 , June 2024, p.p. 774–785.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-024-02237-4

5. NIRCam Filters - JWST User Documentation (stsci.edu)

6. J.D.R.Pierel at all “Discovery of An Apparent Red, High-Velocity Type Ia Supernova at z = 2.9 with JWST”  // 2406.05089 (arxiv.org)