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)

 

 

 

 

 

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

     In the tired light hypothesis if the careful consideration is taken into account, the slow spreading of the initial beam of photons is present [1]. That will make the visible size of the distant objects seems larger compare to real angle size and the corresponding surface luminosity smaller. The observation of the supernova stars relies upon the suggestion that the real size of the explosion is independent of the distance (which is of course, true) and in the absolute absence of any spreading of the light in vacuum the visible size of the supernova explosion will be proportional to 1/R^2 (thus the idea of the standard candle comes to play [2]). 

    In the case of uniformly expanding universe the magnitude of the peak intensity of type 1 supernovae would be linearly proportional in the corresponding coordinates to the red shift observed (see, for example Fig.9 from [3]). Magnitude expressed as apparent magnitude [4] widely accepted in astronomy - the larger the number the more dim is the light, the brightest stars in the sky have small negative numbers like -1 for Sirius)

In this figure the experimental values of magnitude μ (proportional to 1/R^2 if no dust or light scattering is present) are plotted in the corresponding coordinates versus redshift z. The linear correlation obtained in Hubble times starts to deviate at higher z, what means (assuming there is absolutely no change in light properties or supernova properties) that the rate of change of z at the close Universe (later times assuming "Big Bang") is higher compare to older times (closer to "Big Bang").

That discrepancy was explained by the presence of "dark energy" which is generated in the most recent Universe (and absent at the times closer to "Big Bang") and accelerates the expansion of the Universe (the value z from Lemaitre times is attributed to the Doppler-like effect, meaning that the universe is expanding). Faster increase of z for the closer Universe means the Universe in the recent time (because the age is measured using relation r=c*t, where c - speed of light is presumed constant not changing with time) is expanding faster (more change on z value for the same time).

    How the  proposed by Hubble and others theory of tired light may explain the same phenomenon? According to [1] the light emitted by any object (including supernova) is slowly scattered with time (enormously slow, not in one step like Compton scattering, but in billions and trillions of very small steps, see [1]). In this situation the change in energy (energy loss), expressed as z will be observable well before any change of direction is obvious (change of energy is directly proportional to N - number of scatterings, while the change of direction is proportional to sqrt(N) and for huge N it may be very small - well below observation abilities). But eventually the scattering is visible and the visible diameter of the bright spot associated with supernova is enlarged perceptibly (the real diameter is of course, the same, the supernova in Milky Way and supernova in the galaxy one billion light years away are exactly the same). Once such a diameter is enlarged, the brightness is smaller and the supernova looks more dim than it is. If this phenomenon is not taken into account the apparent magnitude is larger (value of μ

in the figure is larger). 

Thus the simple idea of tired light being scattered not once (Compton scattering, original tired light hypothesis) but in very large number may not only easily explain all the problems with far galaxies [1], but also the "dark energy" which in fact is merely the wrong explanation of the observed supernova brightness as a function of distance. This observation in reality is the additional hint toward the nature of light - it is not as simple as piece of electromagnetic wave, it is something else (to be discovered). While in my first publication I advocated the presence of small rest mass of photon [5], in second book the idea of quantized gravitational dipole appeared [6] both those features of photon, despite being possible are still way too small to describe the phenomenon like discovered by James Webb Space Telescope [1]. Most probably photon is even more complex that many scientists believe (non-zero gravitational properties are present like in normal particle). Something even stronger is lingering in photon and much easier to observe (seems like new type of light scattering discovery is right around the corner).

References.

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

2311.0060v1.pdf (vixra.org)

2.Cosmic distance ladder - Wikipedia

3.(PDF) DISCOVERY OF DYNAMICAL 3-SPACE: THEORY, EXPERIMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS-A REVIEW (researchgate.net)

4.Apparent magnitude - Wikipedia

5.(PDF) The quest for new physics. An experimentalist approach (researchgate.net)

2011.0172v1.pdf (vixra.org)

6.(PDF) The quest for new physics. An experimentalist approach. Vol.2 (The second book on the topic, with emphasis on certain ideas.) (researchgate.net)

2212.0058v1.pdf (vixra.org)

Tired light hypothesis got first direct confirmation. Far galaxies demonstrate the features usually attributed to light scattering.

 Tired light hypothesis was rejected 100 years ago on the basis of absence of the light scattering. Indeed as described in details in publication [1] such scattering is not observed for Compton-like scattering indeed.

However, if instead of consideration of the "strong" scattering (one time and energy lowered according to red shift) the case of multiple "weak" scatterings is considered, there is no problem with absence of observed light scattering for nearby galaxies. If N - number of scatterings is very large (say trillions) than the energy is drained slowly (like in the case of red shift observed) but scattering is proportional to sqrt(N) and will be observable only for enormously far galaxies (exact mathematical formulas are in [1]). Of course, such an idea needs a new physics (5th force is proposed in [1]) because such interaction is incredibly small (well below electromagnetic, still stronger than gravitational). And far far galaxies as observed by James Webb Space Telescope indeed demonstrated unusual features (see [1] for photographs) very difficult to explain from Big Bang point of view (active galactic nucleus so early in history?) and easy to explain from light scattering point of view (as expected - majority of far far galaxies are represented by Gaussian circle - all information about galaxy structure is lost, only information about scattering left). 

Undoubtedly tired light explanation has its own problems. The largest one is: the energy drain should be proportional to energy (frequency of photon) so that the Doppler-like red shift is reproduced for the spectrum (it is not distorted by red shift because of such a dependence). This condition is easily reached in the case of classical mechanics but not possible for quantum mechanics (it is either 4th power of energy for Rayleigh scattering, or 2nd power of energy for Compton-like scattering or 0 power for Raman-like scattering). Another big problem is that spectra of far far galaxies demonstrates very strong light scattering as observed through line broadening, too strong for orthogonal light scattering observed (in Big Bang theory such line broadening is attributed to quasar-like plasma heating with velocities ~10 times larger than escape velocity of the galaxies). However, the idea of early galaxies being filled with exploding supernovas so early in history or with supermassive black holes so early in history seems completely contradict to all cosmologists know about close proximity of Milky Way.

References.

1.2311.0060v1.pdf (vixra.org)

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

Quantization of the gravitational dipole. Implications for the red shift of tired light (instead of Big Bang).

 One of the direct consequences of the gravitational dipole quantization is the necessity of the presence of the gravitational dipole even for photon [1,2]. Indeed, for the quantization rule of Bohr-Plank the gravitational dipole would be:

mr=Nh/v

and for quantization according to quantum electrodynamics (and Feynman-Einstein): 

mr=h/v*(1/2+N)

where mr is the gravitational dipole, h - Planks constant, v - is the velocity of the particle.

For the ultra-relativistic particles v~c and for photons v=c (the very small deviation from c due to the non-zero hypothetical mass of photon may be omitted).

Than any ultra-relativistic particle and photon must have the non-zero gravitational dipole, which is at least 1/2*h/c or h/c (depending upon the quantization rule).

Thus even in the case of the zero mass of photon the gravitational dipole is not zero (despite the value h/(2c) is enormously small). That opened the interesting way to explain the red shift of light without Doppler effect - this is tired light based on new physical principle - gravitational dipole is oscillating on the travel of the photons and photon is shedding the gravitoelectromagnetic radiation (in the way similar to oscillation of the electric dipole radiating around). Evaluations shows, however, that if the gravitational dipole of photon is 1/2*h/c (minimum value) even oscillations with frequency of light (6*10exp(14) Hz for green light) is not fast enough to re-create the Hubble shift (lost of energy of around 0.5% for green photon for the distance of 20 Megaparsecs). Only if it is assumed that the gravitational dipole is oscillating with much higher frequency of c/λ, where λ is Compton length for electron (the quantum vacuum fluctuation length, λ=h/mc) the value of the energy radiated is in agreement with the Hubble constant. Such idea also prevents the enormously strong dispersion - proportional to the fourth power of frequency- inevitably would be observed during Hubble time. Indeed, the blue color of the sky is because of this frequency in the power of four dependence and the Hubble shift would be very distorting spectra if the oscillation of the gravitational dipole is determined by the frequency of light.

Another implication is that the value N in the formula for gravitational dipole of photon may be very high and not easy to estimate. But in any case such mechanism (in the case of the quantization of the gravitational dipole [1,2] is real) will offer the alternative way to explain the red shift without any Big Bang hypothesis and making the Universe possibly  infinite and eternal (or at least enormously big and old).

References.

1.The quest for new physics. An experimentalist approach - published by Morebooks on December 2021.

THE QUEST FOR NEW PHYSICS An experimentalist approach / 978-620-4-73173-5 / 9786204731735 / 6204731734 (lap-publishing.com)

2.Tipikin: Quantization of the gravitational dipole