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)