Supernovae at high Z time dilation from NEXUS transients research - the fit is much better for tired light idea compare to Big Bang

 As it was expected, astrophysicists considered the research of transients at high Z (supernovae at high Z) as of utmost importance and especially the light curves for high Z supernovae - will the width of light curves follow 1+Z rule they must follow if Big Bang is valid. The research is in progress and first article [1] is published where James Webb Space Telescope observed the same patch of sky month after month for already more than one year - so any supernova discovered may have at least few time points and some evaluation of the width of the light curve is possible. The project called NEXUS and importance is obvious - the research of supernovae - standard objects (more or less) allows to use those standard beacons to probe the matter and space-time between supernovae and Earth. 

As it was mentioned on this blog [2], supernovae is a compact object contrary to galaxy and at high Z must be a point source (resolution of James Webb Space Telescope is several orders below what is necessary to resolve supernova image, so high Z supernova must always have   a visible size exactly at diffraction limit of telescope - in Big Bang cosmology). In reality the image is way too large, which is confirmation of tired light theory (light is interacting with something, scattered and image is blurred). Since light is statistically scattered - away from straight path and then back -some photons will have  a substantial time delay en route - this is the source of light curve broadening for supernova light curve in the case of tired light theory (it is the same Doppler or Doppler-like effect as cosmological red shift in the case of Big Bang). While for Z~1 the predictions of light curve broadening somewhat close to Big Bang theory  prediction (the difference is small and difficult to find because of so big experimental errors present), for high Z (say Z>3) the difference would be huge: Big Bang theory predicts behavior like 1+Z, while tired light something like sqrt(1+Z). For Z=5 the supernova should be observed (if Big Bang is valid) for around 600 days [3] (instead of around 100 days near Earth for supernova type 2) while tired light prediction would be much smaller - something like 250 days. That enormous difference should not possible to miss even for very rough and imprecise measurements. 

To perform such measurements I used light curves present as points in Fig. 8 from [1] and manually by eye finished light curves. The results are in picture below with days are in Earth time frame.

Figure 1. The approximate light curves for supernovae detected in NEXUS experiment. 

I also added manual fit of the pictures of supernovae at highest Z mentioned in [1]: AT 2025xcu Z=6.15 yields ~200 days and AT 2025amol at Z=4.27 yields ~150 days.

I put all the approximate widths on one plot and compared two possible scenarios:

Figure 2. The plot of all widths clearly differentiates between tired light and Big Bang mechanisms.

I assumed for simplicity that the due to the loss of light for high Z the observation abilities of James Webb Space Telescope would be comparable to weak Earth-based telescope which should show some glow from Supernova type 2 for around 100 days from start till full unobservability [4]. Undoubtedly supernova of any type at Z~0 would be observed by JWST forever (nebulae afterglow assumed to lasts for tens of thousands of years). But at high Z actually supernova is not even recorded easily, so comparison with weak telescope should be fair.

The best fit of the data is actually no dependence at all. If I would put intercept at 100 at Z=0 it would have some slope:

Fig.3 The best linear fit with intercept put at 100 at Z=0 (as it is expected for supernovae at Z~0)

 

Even elimination of the points at highest Z does not create a strong visible correlation:

As it is clear from figure 2, the approximation of tired light looks much better compare to the Big Bang prediction. While the NEXUS experiment is underway till 2028, it is not expected to show any supernovae shining for a year or more (but according to Big Bang and Doppler mechanism James Webb Space Telescope must already clearly demonstrate such enormously elongated light curves). Most probably all the high Z supernovae will demonstrate light curves in the range of 150-200 days after much more accurate fit instead of my hand-made plots. It seems that time dilation as a function of Z goes to some kind of saturation well below demanded by Big Bang Theory 1+Z time.

This "saturation" seemingly correlated with visible angular sizes of supernovae shown in [2]:

Indeed, the time dilation and angular size of blurring has the same origin: some photons are traveling away from direct line and returning back (that changes the travel time creating the temporal widening of any event and changing an angle at arrival, thus creating visible origin of the photon not at the center of supernova). Both phenomena governed by diffusion-like law very approximately like sqrt(Z) or sqrt(1+Z), which at high enough Z must be very different from 1+Z demanded by Doppler mechanism. 

References.

1.Ming-Yang Zhuang, Lei Hu, Justin D. R. Pierel, Zhiwei Pan et all "NEXUS: Transient Searches and First Results from Year One Observations" // Published on ARXIV, September 2026.

NEXUS: Transient Searches and First Results from Year One Observations

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.06985

2.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

3.Ming-Yang Zhuang, Lei Hu, Justin D. R. Pierel, Zhiwei Pan et all "NEXUS: Discovery of a Luminous Young Transient at z=5" // Published on ARXIV, September 2026.

[2609.38373] NEXUS: Discovery of a Luminous Young Transient at $z=5$

https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.38373

4.Astronomers investigate type IIP supernova with a long plateau

https://phys.org/news/2018-06-astronomers-iip-supernova-plateau.html

Video presentation of Cosmological Constant Problem on YouTube.

 Cosmological constant may be relatively small (for Einstein based treatment of Universe) or extremely large (for quantum mechanics treatment of Universe). May be they reconciled using modern knowledge and some assumptions about methodology of theoretical reasoning? The answer is here:

https://youtu.be/tC7bDLuycyg

https://youtu.be/tC7bDLuycyg

Limitations of James Webb Space Telescope and how to estimate the number of galaxies using supernovae.

         Despite the larger mirror for JWST compare to Hubble, it is not picking up all the galaxies in the sky. As the value of Z is larger and larger, some medium or old (red) galaxies are slipping away (the medium size galaxy is not bright enough and old galaxy like elliptical red one is too red - the light due to cosmological reddening is slipping away from the range of JWST). In total this will create the strange feeling that number of galaxies is smaller and smaller as Z becomes higher and higher - which would support the Big Bang idea (originally it was smaller amount of galaxies because they were not formed). Interestingly the same phenomenon will work even in the case of Static Universe with uniform distribution of galaxies - some galaxies are so old and red that they will emit mainly red light - easily seen at Z<1 but shifting to far infrared and becoming mainly invisible for higher Z (they still have blue stars, of course, but too small number of them and thus becomes below the light sensitivity of the sensor). The small galaxy placed far away will merely deliver too small number of photons to be visible (the signal to noise ratio is below what is possible for the sensor even with 6.5 m mirror of JWST). However, there is an interesting way to evaluate the true number of galaxies at certain Z (not very high) for the case of Static Universe using supernovae at high Z. 

    Supernova is not only a compact object [1,2] but also ultrabright object - easily outshine the whole galaxy. It means that in the JWST observations sometimes the "lonely" supernova is visible [3]

        As it is clearly seen on three photos separated by long times (Epoch 1 is July 2022, Epoch 2 is January 2023 and Epoch 3 is July 2023) the hostless supernova type 1A with Z=1.64 is clearly visible. The angular size of it is easy to measure using last square of 2.4"x2.4" (according to [3]) as being around 1.2-1.6*10exp(-6) radian with resolution of JWST equal to 3*10exp(-7) radian - many times larger than it should be because of so small actual size. This is one more confirmation of the light scattering being present (and thus making Big Bang theory obsolete, see [1,2,4] and in addition the confirmation that there are much more galaxies are present at high Z than JWST is actually see. 

        Indeed since the supernova type 1A is the result of the interaction of two stars in binary system what is only possible if there is a lot of other stars is nearby (galaxy is present). By no means may supernova appear from nowhere. The galaxy is not seen because the JWST has limitations and can not see weak galaxies or too old galaxies. However, since supernova outshine the whole galaxy and in addition is small object (no drop in brightness is expected due to the resolved size) it will be visible even without the host galaxy (exactly like in [3] was observed). If the Static Universe is assumed, up to certain Z the number of supernovae observed as a function of Z must actually increase because the further JWST is see, the more galaxies are visible. That is only valid for JWST because Earth bound telescope will see mainly supernovae at Z<1 because of light scattering in atmosphere and smaller mirror size. 

        If I place all Z of supernovae observed by JWST (some data from [3], some from previous publications) on the same plot the distribution will be looking like this:

It seems that aside from first bin for very small z (outlier) the number of supernovae detected is indeed grow as a function of Z and then drops down. Of course for very high Z the blurring of supernova due to light scattering (the same phenomenon which is responsible for red shift of light as it propagates, see this blog for more details [4]) the supernovae will not be observed either (similar to high Z supernovae not observed by small telescope or Earth based telescope). From point of view of Static Universe the dependence would look like similar to what is really observed. From point of view of Big Bang it is necessary to have build up of Universe to observe the supernovae (as galaxies are growing the number of supernovae is increasing) so it would be clearly more of them at Z<1 compare to other Z (at much smaller Z the number of galaxies at reach is however dropping because of  r^2 limitation of the area searched. Clearly the number of supernovae at Z around 1 must be at maximum (the Universe is already old enough to create many of them and the volume observed is also very high). What is observed contradicts Big Bang idea in many ways. At Z~2.5 the Universe total volume is small (3.5 times smaller compare to modern one) and galaxies are very young (no time for supernovae to be created). 

        Conclusion.

Some limitations of JWST with respect to number of galaxies being observed as function of z may be overcame by using the count of supernovae instead - they are bright compact and outshine the host galaxy easily thus being observed where observation of galaxy failed.

References.

1.Tipikin: Supernova GRB 250314A at z=7.3 clearly demonstrates angular size larger than resolution limit of JWST. Smaller objects at smaller z are clearly seen.

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.Haojing Yan, Bangjheng Sun, Jhiyuan Ma, Christopher N.A. Willmer at all // The Astrophysical Journal, 998:115, 2026

PEARLS: 21 Transients Found in the Three-epoch NIRCam Observations in the Continuous Viewing Zone of the James Webb Space Telescope - IOPscience

or on Arxiv arxiv.org/pdf/2506.12175v2

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.12175v2

4.Tipikin: The quest for new physics. An experimentalist approach. Vol.3 The new cosmology.

Tipikin: Video presentation of new book. The quest for new physics. An experimentalist approach. Vol.3. The new cosmology.

The Quest for New Physics. an Experimentalist Approach. Vol.3 the New Cosmology., viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2601.0030

5.Type Ia supernova - Wikipedia

How the usual plots of the Big Bang evolution of the Universe creates wrong impression of slow increase of observed distances with z

             As it was already mentioned in this blog [1] the supernovae images at high Z are completely incompatible with Big Bang cosmology and hints onto the presence of light scattering and tired light mechanism instead. It was interesting to consider how the supernovae type 1A brightness curve would change at very high Z from point of view of Big Bang distances being predicted. 

            The usual plots of history of Universe with linear scale on X-axis for Z instead of distances for Big Bang cosmology are extremely misleading. While they create an impression that the observed distance to far object somewhat proportional to Z, the real distances expressed in light traveling time (re-calculated to distances using the constant speed of light) are enormously non-linear [2]. At higher Z>3 all the galaxies, supernovae are essentially placed on relatively thin (2 billions of light years) shell placed at around 12.5 billions of light years away:

This picture is taken from [2]

More correct representation closer to real scale of the distances traveled by light from the distant galaxies would be like this one:

Tolman effect usually refers to the brightness of galaxies (must be weaker for similar galaxies because the space-time expanded and increased the angular size of galaxy, thus dropping the brightness as seen from Earth). But a similar effect may be attributed to the resolution: because of space-time expansion the visible angular size of galaxies must be larger and since they all at approximately the same distance from Earth (as observed, not today's distance) they must have higher resolution. The space-time expansion of the Big Bang must work as a magnifying lens, greatly enhancing any feature.

            Exactly opposite is observed by James Webb Space Telescope - the resolution is poorer and poorer as Z increases. This is impossible for Big Bang cosmology but easily explained by tired light cosmology - in this case there is no such "shell" for galaxies, while the distance ladder is not really linear, it is much less non-linear. For static Universe z=1 would correspond to ~10 billions of light years, z=3 to approximately 20 billions of light years, z=7 to approximately 30 billions of light years and z=15 to approximately 40 billions of light years. No problem the galaxies at z~13-14 is not resolved at all - it is 2 times further compare to z=3 and 4 times further compare to z=1. Even JWST can not resolve galaxies at so high distance, by pure chance they are bright enough to be visible at least as blurry patch.

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.

2.I made this Look-back Time by Redshift chart while checking Explainxkcd's math for 2853: Redshift : r/xkcd

Video presentation of new book. The quest for new physics. An experimentalist approach. Vol.3. The new cosmology.

 Here is the video: click the text below, it has link.

Video presentation of the book

Experimentalist approach works poorly in mathematics. Mathematics (formal science) and natural sciences (physics, biology, chemistry etc) demand different methodologies.

 An experimentalist approach is one of the known science approaches in physics (in very crude terms it may be called trial and error method). Another well known approach dominated in the second half of the 20th century is a theoretician approach (new phenomenon is predicted from the analysis of already existing theory and merely verified by experimentalist by using the exactly set experiment - like top quark or Higgs boson discovery). The present day huge crisis in fundamental physics may need for resolution the return back to experimentalist approach [1-3], however, it is the interesting question about methodology - may this method (experimentalist approach) be applied to other disciplines (for example math)? This publication describes an attempt and demonstrates that this is not a good idea.

    I tried "experiments" with well known Fibonacci sequence (already 900 years old and well researched). May be something new found through tinkering around (like experiment with electronic devices made from newly synthesized semiconductors or synthesis of new ferromagnetic or potential room temperature "superconductors" [4]). In physics it works well, not like in [4] but like discovery of high-temperature superconductors in 1986 [5]. 

    The original Fibonacci sequence is a linear recurrence relation:

F(n)=F(n-1)+F(n-2)

what if the sign is minus instead of plus? Kind of experiment without looking for general theory, in horizontal direction of knowledge search, not in vertical, without generalizations? And limiting research for whole numbers only?

F(n)=F(n-1)-F(n-2)

The result is unusual - it will generate a simple cycle. 

F(n-2)=0

F(n-1)=1

F(n)=F(n-1)-F(n-2)=1-0=1

F(n+1)=F(n)-F(n-1)=1-1=0

F(n+2)=F(n+1)-F(n)=0-1=-1

F(n+3)=F(n+2)-F(n+1)=-1-0=-1

F(n+4)=F(n+3)-F(n+2)=-1-(-1)=-1+1=0

F(n+5)=F(n+4)-F(n+3)=0-(-1)=0+1=1

F(n+6)=F(n+5)-F(n+4)=1-0=1

F(n+7)=F(n+6)-F(n+5)=1-1=0

F(n+8)=F(n+7)-F(n+6)=0-1=-1

F(n+9)=F(n+8)-F(n+7)=-1-0=-1

............

The sequence is obviously a simple cycle: 0,1,1,0,-1,-1,0,1,1,0,-1,-1,.......

This simple cycle is easily proved for any original numbers:

F(n-2)=a

F(n-1)=b

F(n)=F(n-1)-F(n-2)=b-a

F(n+1)=F(n)-F(n-1)=b-a-b=-a

F(n+2)=F(n+1)-F(n)=-a-(b-a)=-a-b+a=-b

F(n+3)=F(n+2)-F(n+1)=-b-(-a)=-b+a=a-b

F(n+4)=F(n+3)-F(n+2)=a-b-(-b)=a-b+b=a

F(n+5)=F(n+4)-F(n+3)=a-(a-b)=a-a+b=b

F(n+6)=F(n+5)-F(n+4)=b-a

F(n+7)=F(n+6)-F(n+5)=b-a-(b)=-a

F(n+8)=F(n+7)-F(n+6)=-a-(b-a)=-a-b+a=-b

F(n+9)=F(n+8)-F(n+7)=-b-(-a)=-b+a=a-b

The sequence is a cycle for any input numbers: a;b;b-a;-a;-b;a-b;a;b;b-a;-a;-b;a-b.......

So at first glance the experiment leads to something completely new, not associated with Fibonacci sequence at all. 

However, quick glance into theoretical approach (checking for general theory using calculus, differential equations, discrete mathematics) quickly explains that this is actually well known result, but not for Fibonacci sequence but for more general linear recurrence relations [6]. Actually there is a big branch of mathematics devoted to recurrence relations. In the simple case of linear recurrence relations of kind 

a_rx(n+r) + a_r-1x(n+r-1)+….+a₀x(n)=f

if f=0 and modality r=2 the second modality recurrence relation becomes:

a₂x(n+2) + a₁x(n+1) + a₀x(n)=0

And if  a₂=1, a₁=a₀=-1 it becomes: x(n+2)-x(n+1)-x(n)=0 or F(n)=F(n-1)+F(n-2) - Fibonacci sequence. And for a₁=-1, a₂=a₀=1 it becomes x(n+2)-x(n+1)+x(n)=0 or F(n)=F(n-1)-F(n-2) cyclic Fibonacci sequence with unusual properties obtained by experiment.

The general solution of recurrence relations of second modality a₂x(n+2) + a₁x(n+1) + a₀x(n)=0

is determined by the characteristic equation [6]: 

a₂λ²+a₁λ+a₀=0

(for the other modalities that would be a_rλ^r+a_r-1λ^r-1+…. + a₀=0 )

For Fibonacci sequence the characteristic equation is λ²-λ-1=0 with both roots are real - it will follow the solution described in [6].

For cyclic Fibonacci the equation is λ²-λ+1=0 and both roots are complex numbers - similar to linear differential equations the solution is oscillating (periodic). If the roots are degenerate (for characteristic equation λ²-2λ+1=0 both roots are equal to 1 the Fibonacci sequence becomes:

F(n)=2F(n-1)-F(n-2)

And this is the third type of "Fibonacci" sequence - neither exponential growth nor periodic but linear: 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9

Strictly speaking only original sequence F(n)=F(n-1)+F(n-2) may be called Fibonacci, the rest is simply linear recurrence relations [6], there are infinite number of them and analysis is very easy if characteristic equation is used - if you use theoreticians approach. You may choose what period you need, figure out the necessary roots and arrive to linear recurrence relation without "trial and error" method. The difference may be illustrated by the scheme:

So in the case of mathematics the experimentalist approach is kind of useless and theoretician (mathematician) approach is the best. What is the problem with physics in this consideration? Why it is not working perfectly exactly like described?

The answer is that mathematics is  a formal science, not natural science. The general solution found on upper level works for any object on lower level without limitations. But physics is different [7,8] - the nature is unpredictable and impossible to guess. It is always "orthogonal" to what may be expected. 

Suppose Einstein never appeared with General Relativity. From experimental observations of Tycho Brahe   Kepler and Newton developed upper level of planets motion theory - Newton physics. It predicted discovery of planets Neptune, Pluto successfully and thus was considered as a general theory that must work everywhere (like general theory of recurrence relations in mathematics). Since Mercury has a problem with orbit, the Vulcan planet was predicted [9]. It was searched for decades with zero success but since the general Newton theory tells it must be present and in the absence of Einstein what would be the final conclusion? This is a dark planet! Because it must be present and because it is so close to Sun it is somehow invisible, only reveal itself by gravity (because the general Newton theory must hold). That sounds very familiar in the beginning of 21st century because it is exactly what modern physics is looking for: dark matter. This is where the physics deviates so much from mathematics - mathematical laws are absolute, works for any numbers and objects, physical laws are merely approximations, they have limitations sooner or later discovered. 

If mathematics would be also non-exact, the experimentalist approach would be vindicated. For example, the extensive search of linear recurrence relations may eventually lead to discovery of still "Fibonacci" sequence like constant or logarithmic "Fibonacci" sequences or whatever it turned out. It would be like mathematics established (greatly exaggerated)  that 1*1=1 and 2*2=4 but 3*3=8.999 and 10*10=99.3 or even sometimes 99.3, sometimes 100.2. Impossible for mathematics but sometimes happened in physics. 

Possibly the huge crisis in modern fundamental physics is exactly because of this - modern fundamental physics is theoretician (mathematicians) approach, while real physics needs both theoreticians and experimentalists approaches to move forward.

References.

1. Dmitriy S. Tipikin “The quest for new physics. An experimentalist approach. Where to find new physics?”// LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, 2021.

2011.0172v1.pdf (vixra.org) or https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353523212_The_quest_for_new_physics_An_experimentalist_approach

2. Dmitriy S. Tipikin “The quest for new physics. An experimentalist approach. Vol.2 Reflections on tired light hypothesis versus Big Bang” // LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, 2022.

2212.0058v1.pdf (vixra.org) or

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366067523_The_quest_for_new_physics_An_experimentalist_approach_Vol2_The_second_book_on_the_topic_with_emphasis_on_certain_ideas#fullTextFileContent

3.Dmitriy S. Tipikin "The quest for new physics. An experimentalist approach. Vol.3 The new cosmology" // Published on Internet on January 7 2026.

2601.0030v1.pdf

https://vixra.org/pdf/2601.0030v1.pdf

4.LK-99 - Wikipedia

5.High-temperature superconductivity - Wikipedia

6.4recurrence.pdf

https://www.math.uci.edu/~ndonalds/math180b/4recurrence.pdf

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

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

9.Vulcan (hypothetical planet) - Wikipedia

Fibonacci simple cycle. What if the sign is minus instead of plus?

 Fibonacci sequence is a marvel of mathematics and thoroughly investigated [1]. There are numerous generalizations of Fibonacci numbers (tribonacci, tetrabonacci etc), but I found no mention of simplifications of Fibonacci sequence, mainly Fibonacci cycle.

        The classical Fibonacci sequence is generated as follows:

F(n)=F(n-1)+F(n-2)

Now let's play around and replace sign "plus" to sign "minus". The result is unusual - it will generate a simple cycle. 

F(n-2)=0

F(n-1)=1

F(n)=F(n-1)-F(n-2)=1-0=1

F(n+1)=F(n)-F(n-1)=1-1=0

F(n+2)=F(n+1)-F(n)=0-1=-1

F(n+3)=F(n+2)-F(n+1)=-1-0=-1

F(n+4)=F(n+3)-F(n+2)=-1-(-1)=-1+1=0

F(n+5)=F(n+4)-F(n+3)=0-(-1)=0+1=1

F(n+6)=F(n+5)-F(n+4)=1-0=1

F(n+7)=F(n+6)-F(n+5)=1-1=0

F(n+8)=F(n+7)-F(n+6)=0-1=-1

F(n+9)=F(n+8)-F(n+7)=-1-0=-1

............

The sequence is obviously a simple cycle: 0,1,1,0,-1,-1,0,1,1,0,-1,-1,.......

This simple cycle is easily proved for any original numbers:

F(n-2)=a

F(n-1)=b

F(n)=F(n-1)-F(n-2)=b-a

F(n+1)=F(n)-F(n-1)=b-a-b=-a

F(n+2)=F(n+1)-F(n)=-a-(b-a)=-a-b+a=-b

F(n+3)=F(n+2)-F(n+1)=-b-(-a)=-b+a=a-b

F(n+4)=F(n+3)-F(n+2)=a-b-(-b)=a-b+b=a

F(n+5)=F(n+4)-F(n+3)=a-(a-b)=a-a+b=b

F(n+6)=F(n+5)-F(n+4)=b-a

F(n+7)=F(n+6)-F(n+5)=b-a-(b)=-a

F(n+8)=F(n+7)-F(n+6)=-a-(b-a)=-a-b+a=-b

F(n+9)=F(n+8)-F(n+7)=-b-(-a)=-b+a=a-b

The sequence is a cycle for any input numbers: a;b;b-a;-a;-b;a-b;a;b;b-a;-a;-b;a-b.......

The original Fibonacci sequence has a lot of implications in physical world [1]: golden ratio, spirals of pine cones, honeybees etc.

The cycle Fibonacci sequence has even more implications for physical world - oscillations are everywhere and time itself is based on the presence of repeating sequences (cycles). Yet the cycle sequence is very easy to obtain - the great question on the exam in elementary school to illustrate how small change may lead to great difference in behavior.

References.

1.Fibonacci sequence - Wikipedia