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 1/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

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

 Vol.3 of my series devoted to the experimentalist approach for the search of New Physics is published on Research Gate:

(PDF) The quest for new physics. An experimentalist approach. Vol.3 The new cosmology

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/399529971_The_quest_for_new_physics_An_experimentalist_approach_Vol3_The_new_cosmology

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.

             Thanks to the NASA publication of the original image of the supernova at high Z (GRB 250314A) [1] everybody may demonstrate the new physics using simple manipulations with Paint program. After downloading the full image into Paint, I greatly multiplied it so the original image of supernova would be easy to see (it is merely a dot on the low-resolution image). Then I cut and copied part of the greatly amplified image into second Paint picture. On the original image (greatly expanded) I easily found a well resolved galaxy at low z (only low-z galaxy are possible to resolve even by JWST) which is not bright (no projectile-looking artefacts) and has the objects with visibly much smaller angular size (those objects at low z, where the light scattering is small are representing the real optical resolution of JWST). The result is here:

      In the second figure multiplication is even larger:

In this figure the galaxy on the left is well resolved (clearly below z~0.1) so the expected blurring is minimum, some objects (possibly bright star clusters or star associations inside the galaxy) are having small angular size (approximately the diffraction limit of telescope). The supernova at z=7.3 is clearly blurred and looks fuzzy due to light scattering present. It can not have any resolved angular size (at z=7.3 merely impossible, to resolve it the telescope must have the mirror of a size of a thousand of kilometers). Yet this very small in astrophysical sense object (just ~20 times larger than Pluto orbit) clearly demonstrates the angular size - the only possible explanation is that this is problem with light (almost certainly tired light theory is valid) and such observation is a strong objection against Big Bang.

There is one more figure with the participation of the largest galaxy (lowest Z) from original image:

          This exercise is similar to already published before [2-4] and demonstrates the presence of light scattering at high z directly. Galaxies may be big or small but supernova is a very compact object. It is only visible at the around maximum brightness and at that time (24-30 days after explosion) is merely 20 times larger than Pluto orbit. At the enormous distance of tens of billions of light years away it must be at the diffraction limit of telescope (be one of the smallest dots visible on image). It can not be resolved under any circumstances for Z>0.001 even by JWST. Unless the "primordial" supernovae (in Big Bang cosmology) are expanding at speed of around 100000 times speed of light they can not reached the size necessary for resolution by JWST. Observation of such objects having real angular size (clearly larger than diffraction limit of telescope) creates enormous stress on Big Bang theory and may be only reasonably explained by tired light theory (obviously after billions and trillions of small events of scattering the light is not only reddened due to energy loss but also a little scattered). 

References.

1.GRB 250314A Pull-out (NIRCam Image) - NASA Science

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

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

4.Tipikin: 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