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

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

Revealing the internal structure of electron - energy of 0.8 to 1.6 TeV (at least) and easier for muons

             In the previous post [1] the idea of the internal structure of the electron is discussed (based on the already discovered for quarks fractional charges, what makes the idea of electron (muon) holding primal, most basic integer charge unit somewhat improbable. But what would be the energy necessary to see such an internal structure of the electron? Is it easier for muon (obviously the electron and muon would have similar structures with merely different "electronic quarks" being present, muon merely having heavier "electronic quarks"). This is the discussion topic here.

            Obviously the constituents of the electron or muon can not be the same quarks as in proton or pion - they are way too heavy for this small (only 0.5 MeV for electron) particle. Let's call them "electronic quarks" to emphasize analogy to already discovered quarks - they most probably have the same fractional charges of 1/3, 2/3 as well. This also goes from pion known structure (consists of two quarks) and may go through W- boson to either muon or electron. Inside this W- boson the known quarks are converted into "electronic quarks" while keeping theirs primal basic charges thus transferring this integer charge (in reality combination of -2/3+(-1/3) or -2/3+(-2/3)+(1/3) or (-1/3)+(-1/3)+(-1/3) further to "elementary" particles like electron and/or muon). It is possible, of course that nature is so bizarre that after all it have two types of primal, most basic values of charges - both fractional and integer. As described in another blog, it is impossible to "outsmart" the nature [2] and every fundamental theoretical work only takes place after some small experimental result (like a hint in the correct direction), including the Standard Model, which was only possible after the high-energy particle experiments demonstrated some wrong results. For now the presence of fractional charges in quarks I consider as a hint that electron and muon are not elementary particles and may be split (at least the scattering experiments may reveal the complex nature of them because most probably the "electronic quarks" may not be isolated pretty much like already known quarks). 

            In order to make any evaluations of the energy and probability of splitting involved it would be necessary to switch to empirical consideration of the structure of electron. Instead of further development of Standard Model to include new types of "electronic quarks" (what would theoretician prefer) I would go to the concept of surface tension (similar to Aage Bohr [3]) (similar to liquid drop model [4]), because I am an experimentalist and very rough estimate is OK for me. The "surface tension" in composite (non-elementary) particles plays more and more important role as size becomes smaller and total energy larger since the smaller the size of the particle (and correspondingly the energy is larger) the more virtual particles may it excite from quantum vacuum (both discovered and undiscovered, either small energy or large energy, on all possible levels). In certain sense the quarks can not be separated because the force between them becomes larger with distance but because if somebody pumps the proton with energy in an attempt to split it the "surface layer" is becoming larger and larger and sorbing the energy inside, creating the bubble of virtual particles around those quarks preventing energy being delivered directly to quarks. In essence the properties of quantum vacuum as we know it preventing this event. It may be possible however, if the quantum vacuum around the proton is modified, if the event of strike takes place inside quark-gluon plasma, for example [5]. The importance of pure empirical "surface term" as size goes down may be demonstrated as follows:

A. Rydberg hydrogen atom considered as obtaining more energy through "surface term": diameter of around 1 micrometer [6] and added energy is 13.6 eV (ionization energy of hydrogen), the "surface term" energy would be E= - α*S, α=1.8*10exp(13) eV/m²

B. Nucleus of iron: radius is 4.6*10exp(-15) m and "surface term" from [4] is 17.23MeV*A^2/3

what yields E= - β*S, β=1.44*10exp(37) eV/m²

^{C. W- boson being considered as non-elementary particles: energy is 80 GeV (for simplicity it is assumed all energy now is from "surface term", the other terms are neglected for evaluation). Radius may be only estimated as 10exp(-17) m [7] and the "surface term" would be:}

E= - γ*S, γ=2.5*10exp(44) eV/m²

My way to explain why those "electronic quarks" are capable to be inside the particle like electron with mass only 0.5 MeV or muon with mass of 105.7 MeV is that they stay so tightly together, that the surface term due to minimization of size becomes very small too. Thus the size of "electron nucleus" may be estimated (from formula E= - γ*S) as 2.5*10exp(-20) m for electron and 3.7*10exp(-19) m for muon. Since electron is not considered here as elementary particle it may now have two sizes, similar to any atom which has Compton size of ~2.43*10exp(-12) m and Compton size of nucleus of ~1.32*10exp(-15) m. Now electron has the electric field determined Compton size of ~2.43*10exp(-12) m and "electronic quarks" determined size of 2.5*10exp(-20) m.

            The only way to evaluate how much energy would be necessary to see the internal structure of electron and muon (since they both have one progenitor W- boson) is to use analogy: quarks were visible for proton when accelerators reached around 10-20 GeV, W- boson is 80 times heavier, so the lowest level would be 0.8-1.6 TeV for electron-positron, muon-muon, electron-electron etc. beams energy. The predecessor of BAC was only able to reach 200 GeV for electron-positron beam, way below what is necessary. 

            Another way to evaluate energy is to find at what energy ultra-relativistic particle would have the De-Broglie wavelength of 2.5*10exp(-20) m (for electron internal structure) or 3.7*10exp(-19) m (for muon). From formula λ=h/p=h*c/p*c=h*c/E, where h is Plank's constant, c is speed of light and  E is energy of  the ultra-relativistic particle it follows: for electron energy is 7.956*10exp(-6) J and for muon it is 5.38*10exp(-7) J. Corresponding energy in TeV would be 50 TeV for electron and "merely" 3.36 TeV for muon. Again for muon it seems to be easier to be split apart (sense internal structure),  electron is by far tougher particle. 

            It is also enormously small probability of correct interaction in the beam - since the only way to see the structure is to see the scattering of nearly head to head collision, with size of only 2.5*10exp(-20) the scattering event would be very rare. Those accelerators will mainly generating the same stuff which was discovered on predecessor of BAC, possibly decades of experiment would be necessary to see such scattering, which would revealed the internal structure of electron and muon. It seems millions of times easier for muon, of course (since it is heavier, this energy may be reached in circular accelerator, much less energy loss due to synchrotronic radiation [1]; plus it is bigger, so the probability of correct strike is much higher). For electron the special linear accelerator is to be built, the expenses are expected to be enormous and such discovery may only prognosed for the next century (or may be 23d century). 

            As a conclusion - the hint from fractional charges of quarks means the shortest way for new physics in the higher energy direction includes electron or muon accelerator for 0.8-1.6 TeV (another evaluation 3.4-50 TeV) capable of working for decades in order to catch enormously rare event of scattering revealing the internal structure of those "elementary" particles. While it is possible from engineering point of view, such breakthrough would demand so enormous money that may be safely considered as sci-fi for now. Repeating [1] - new physics in the opposite direction (ultra-low energy particles, search for fifth force weaker than gravitational or in the gap between gravity and electromagnetism) would be much cheaper to reach.

References.

1.Tipikin: The quest for new physics. An experimentalist approach. The quest for new physics in high energy direction.

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

3.https://gymarkiv.sdu.dk/MFM/kdvs/mfm%2020-29/mfm-26-14.pdf

4.https://www.personal.soton.ac.uk/ab1u06/teaching/phys3002/course/04_liquiddrop.pdf

5.Tipikin: Increase of the yield of the elementary particles created at collider through manipulations with quantum vacuum. A chemical approach to the elementary particle physics.

6.Rydberg atom - Wikipedia

7.W and Z bosons - Wikipedia

The quest for new physics. An experimentalist approach. The quest for new physics in high energy direction.

     The previous ideas were devoted mainly to the search of interactions weaker than gravitational or in the gap between the electromagnetic and gravitational force [1-3]. That seems like the cheapest and most under-investigated direction of research (for ultra low weight particles, ultra weak forces which may only reveal itself on the cosmic scales [4]). 

    However, there is a second more common direction of research in fundamental physics - towards the higher energies, as high as possible. The recent success of Standard Model instantly posed a question - what is next, where to go further? I already generated couple of ideas in this direction [5,6] and now it is time for the next one. 

    Assuming the Standard Model is valid in the areas the predictions coincide with experiment (on quark level) the fundamental electric charge (one of the oldest discoveries in physics) is not actually integer of charge of electron, but rather 1/3 (because quarks have charges 2/3, 1/3, positive and negative). Even artificial intelligence agrees with me, if asked through Google [7]:

"Fractional quark charges (like +2/3e or -1/3e) are more fundamental in describing particle substructure..."

They can not be seen outside the elementary particle like proton, this is true, but the presence of such fractional charges even inside the proton means that 1/3 and 2/3 charges are more primal compare to integer and possibly any integer is in essence combination of those fractions. That instantly means that electron is not elementary particle (because most probably it consists of some parts with 1/3 or 2/3 charge, despite most probably those constituents can not be separated similar to quarks). Of course, it is necessary to emphasize that the known quarks can not be inside the electrons (they have much higher mass and the whole Standard Model would fell apart if this is possible). That idea, however, is exactly New Physics - it is obviously goes beyond the known fundamental physics, does not contradict it (electron and muon are considered as elementary particles merely as a fit, as an approximation toward more general theory exactly like proton and neutron were considered as elementary particles 100 years ago). For example the neutron decay involves the conversion in charge from fractional number (in quarks) to the whole number (in electron) through the virtual W^- boson, which is very heavy (so may easily consists of many particles inside) and responsible for conversion down quark to up quark (manipulation with fractional charges) so it is a strong hint that in reality it is also a composite particles with constituents having charge 1/3, 2/3 and it is not split yet merely because it demands too much energy. The particle  W^- boson is electron  and most probably the fractional charges inside this boson is transferred to electron creating the unified charge of -1, being actually presented inside electrons like combination of -1/3, -1/3, -1/3 or -2/3, -2/3, +1/3 or even more complex. While nature is bizarre in it's laws and may have after all both fractional (1/3, 2/3) and integer numbers (-1, +1) being fundamental, there is a strong hint from history of science that only one variant predominates and electron, muon and other charged "elementary" particles are not really elementary, they only look elementary (because the fractional charge is more fundamental than integer).

     Why such discovery is not yet made? The answer is in experiment - during the rotation of charged particles in the synchrotron the energy loss due to synchrotron radiation is inversely proportional to non-relativistic  mass in the power of four [8]. Since proton is 1800 times more heavy it is dramatically easier to accelerate it in a classical circle accelerator compare to electron. While electrons are successfully accelerated in linear accelerators they can not yet reach the energies of TeV already reached for protons. 

    There is a serious push for even larger accelerator in the high energy community now and this hint toward discovery of internal structure of electron (muon actually should be easier to crack because of higher mass and possibly less "rigid" structure inside) may stir community interest toward linear accelerators of enormous power instead of more classical circles. In any case the money involved are huge and from my perspective much cheaper way to find New Physics stays in the opposite direction (toward as low energies as possible, see [1-4]

References.

1.THE QUEST FOR NEW PHYSICS An experimentalist approach: Where to find new physics?: Tipikin, Dmitriy: 9786204731735: Amazon.com: Books

2.https://www.morebooks.de/shop-ui/shop/product/9786205529867

3.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375517684_Tired_light_hypothesis_possibly_got_confirmation_by_direct_observation_of_light_scattering

2406.0162v1.pdf

4.Tipikin: Axionic dark matter possibility from light scattering demonstrated by JWST for high z objects.

5.Tipikin: Quantum vacuum application to gravity: the Higgs boson antigravitational particle predicted

6.Tipikin: Increase of the yield of the elementary particles created at collider through manipulations with quantum vacuum. A chemical approach to the elementary particle physics.

7.is fractional charges of quarks are more fundamental than the integer charge or electron - Google Search

8.Lecture 9a Synchrotron Radiation.ppt

Galaxy as an open system with thermonuclear engine causing rotation in spiral galaxy.

          This idea was already considered in this blog [1]. Indeed, why we consider the rotation of stars in the galaxy being equivalent to planets? The stars are generating a lot of energy, and if the mechanism is present transforming only ~1% of this energy into rotation, it may easily explain the rotation curve of any galaxy. The hint is actually Tully-Fisher relation [2] - brighter galaxies are rotating faster compare to dimmer one. What if indeed such mechanism is present (and indeed the original relation was for brightness of the galaxies - amount of energy they are generating-  not about mass, it is merely assumed that brighter galaxy has higher mass, which after all may be not true). In[1] it was hypothesized that such idea is possible because of "heavy light" - light inside the stars is moving much slower (the effective refraction coefficient is >100) and thus gravitating strongly, but the direct evaluation of this effect using binaries demonstrated that this effect even if present is way too weak to be responsible for the too fast rotation of galaxies [3].

          However, recent observation of the very large sizes of supernovae at high Z [4] leads to the idea of the dark matter being represented by some ultralight particles (femto to pico eV total mass) which do interact with light somehow (not "dark matter" after all) [5]. The present day search for extremely light particles interacting with light and predicted by Standard Model (axions) is well justified in this content - it is approximately what the so-called "dark matter" most probably looks like. I am expecting they will be discovered relatively soon (unfortunately they are enormously light in mass and thus discovery is enormously difficult). And those particles interacting with light indeed easily explain the so-called cusp problem [6] (why in the center of galaxy like Andromeda galaxy the concentration of "dark matter" is so small, if this matter is interacting only gravitationally [7]).

          The other property of such "light matter" halo around the galaxy is that it may create the mechanical feedback loop necessary to transform energy of light into the rotation of the galaxy:

            It is obvious that in such a dynamic system due to the slightest always present fluctuations the static equilibrium will be broken and dynamic equilibrium will corresponds to mixture of rotation and oscillations. Because of the presence of stars generating energy the positive feedback will quickly transform the galaxy into the open system similar to vortex in the bathtub. If the energy  supply is high enough - it will generate the similar pattern and will rotate approximately as a solid body starting from certain distance from the center - exactly what is observed. If the energy is not enough - no rotation, the attrition between stars will work like  a friction [8] and prevent rotation like in an elliptical galaxy.

            Afterall the galaxy rotation being similar to the bathtub water swirl may be due to the fact that both of them are open systems and not because of strangely looking "dark matter" which in reality is "light matter" and responsible for the transformation of the energy of thermonuclear synthesis into the mechanical energy of rotation.

References.

1.Tipikin: Light matter attraction as a driving force for Galaxy rotation - the energy transformed from thermonuclear to mechanical

2.Tully–Fisher relation - Wikipedia

3.2007.0195v1.pdf

https://vixra.org/pdf/2007.0195v1.pdf

Tipikin: Weak equivalence principle check for non-barionic matter using eclipsing spectrometric binaries. No evidence for dark matter.

4.Tipikin: The higher Z, the stronger the effect of light scattering present in the supernova images. Supernova at Z=3.6 looks gigantic.

5.Tipikin: Static Universe and cosmological constant - back to original Einstein equation with empirical cosmological constant. Light matter absorbs light, heats, generates pressure and holds galaxies from coalescence.

6.Cuspy halo problem - Wikipedia

7.Dark matter fraction derived from the M31 rotation curve | Astronomy & Astrophysics (A&A)

https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2025/02/aa52753-24/aa52753-24.html

8.An introduction to dynamical friction in stellar systems | American Journal of Physics | AIP Publishing

https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article-abstract/75/2/139/1056314/An-introduction-to-dynamical-friction-in-stellar?redirectedFrom=fulltext

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

 When superstring theory was started the scientists made not one but two important assumptions: second one is that the primal, most fundamental entity is one-dimensional (string) and first one, which is extremely general is that such a fundamental, smallest, non-dividable further entity exists at all. The first assumption is by far more important because there is  a lot of physicists (me included) who are sure that no fundamental entity exists at all, all the phenomena are emergent (made from something smaller), quark, for example will be split one day and any present day idea about the smallest entity is nothing more but the approximation, fit of nature laws, sooner or latter being replaced by something more fundamental, then by even more fundamental and so on.  

In this paradigm the theory of everything is impossible, scientists are discovering not the utmost laws but merely an approximations, fits of the natural phenomena doomed to be obsolete one day. Something like it was an approximate theory of liquid drop nucleus, which is now replaced by shell theory and will be replaced by something stemming directly from quarks one day and so on and so on. In this consideration the superstring idea is nothing more than  a fit of smaller but not smallest entity. That would be a bad fit for this situation. This is because once the even smaller than superstring entity is proposed, the interaction of those entities would try to minimize the energy, make short the surface and finally break the string. Null-dimensional primal entities (fit for right now) looks much better approach merely because they already have the surface energy minimized (sphere is the entity with smallest surface). If instead of superstring the superballs would be considered, they one day may generate at least some useful insights into the organization of the nature on the smaller level like liquid drop nuclei model was able to predict some useful phenomena like fission or oscillations of the nucleus [1-4].

This is because the analog of surface tension exists on all levels of the organization of matter - from round shape of planets, to the droplet of water, to the shape of nucleus - whenever even smaller entities are present, the inevitability of interactions between them demands decrease of total energy through round shape. If the interaction between entities are anisotropic the shape may be different (crystal) but in this case the existence of such anisotropy hints onto the lower level of matter organization present.

Only if the researcher is making a tremendous "leap of faith" and assumes that the entity is the smallest possible one may he or she consider it in a shape of string or bran (one-dimensional or two dimensional). In this case the shape may be different - by definition it is smallest, but if the assumption is wrong nothing useful will ever appear - the underlying entities will be assembled into something like balls (recall nucleus) not strings, because the string (cylinder) would have the surface energy well above minimum. The whole work will be a complete bullshit. That is why it is much safer to "play" with smallest entities being considered as null-dimensional - they will be eventually considered as built from something smaller but will work as a useful approximation [1-4]

References.

1.Semi-empirical mass formula - Wikipedia

2.Shape of the atomic nucleus - Wikipedia

3.The Discovery of Fission - Moments of Discovery

4.A comprehensive view of nuclear shapes, rotations and vibrations from fully quantum mechanical perspectives

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

 One of the reasons for the huge crisis in fundamental physics is that theoreticians strongly overestimate the ability of foresee the organization of the natural phenomena and strongly underestimate the "inventiveness" of Nature. They still sure that the same approach what was fine for quantum mechanics and special/general relativity will work forever in the future. The historical examples show that in many cases the small but crucial experiment would be necessary to "stir" the attention of theoreticians to the right direction. 

1.Superconductivity (BCS theory) [1]. While it was clear that some kind of quantum effect is responsible for superconductivity, the majority of theoreticians were sure that the key is in the electronic properties of metals (band structure, interactions between atoms in the lattice or similar). Only the seemingly small discovery of very small isotopic effect (transition temperature change due to different isotope) created understanding that phonons are somehow responsible (because the electronic properties of both isotopes are precisely the same, but the different mass of the nuclei will create a difference in sound propagation and this is the only way to correlate the change of critical temperature while isotope is changed).

2.JJ Thompson model of the atom rejection [2]. After discovery of electron it was clear that inside the atom there are positively and negatively charged entities. While electron was correctly represented at that time as a small charged ball (OK for the beginning of the 20th century) the positive charge was represented as a big cloud (quite a reasonable assumption since nobody ever deal with this). So the theoreticians were building theories with those assumptions - electron is a small ball but positively charged cloud is big. Only smart experiment of Rutherford (rarely observed deviation of alpha particles on the very high angle) forced theoreticians to think about positive charge as about something very small inside the atom, no other evidence for such consideration existed from previous knowledge.

3.Quantization principle. There were many smart mathematicians before 20th century. They were modifying Newton equations and deriving them from numerous underlying principles - Hamilton, Lagrange, Jacobi (Hamilton-Jacobi equation) but still made it compatible with classical mechanics. No one ever guessed about possibility of quantization - Plank essentially invented quantization to fit the experimental result of Kirchoff on black body radiation. Again seemingly small and unimportant result preceded the major theoretical modification. 

4.Replacement of liquid-drop model of nucleus to nuclear shell model [3]. After the discovery of the protons and neutrons the most obvious model widely accepted by theoreticians was liquid-drop model of nucleus. Indeed, the empirical introduction of some of the parameters like surface tension and strong force parameters allowed nicely fit numerous observations like elongated shape of the nucleus due to presence of "surface tension" [4] and predicted/explained fission. However, the seemingly not so important properties like hyperfine splitting in electron paramagnetic resonance (and existence of magnetic moment of some but not all nuclei as confirmed by nuclear magnetic resonance) allowed to confirm the presence of "magic numbers" in nuclei and thus lead to shift to shell model. 

5.Discovery of fission itself (with nuclear and hydrogen bomb invention) started from seemingly small experiment made by Fermi (nuclear transmutation, creation of isotopes 93 and 94) [5], which was initially interpreted as the simple addition of neutron to the nucleus present (quite an obvious explanation, reasonable from what was known at that time). It turned out that the original explanation was incorrect (Ida Noddack created correct one) and Otto Hanh following the correct explanation managed to discover the fission. This time it was a little more complicated that simple experiment shifting the theoreticians attention, but after all the experiment preceded bomb idea, no theoretician before Hanh would even think about such possibility. 

Again and again the powerful push forward in fundamental physics was initiated by seemingly small and unimportant experimental discovery but not by application of more developed theory based on first principles already known.  This contradiction has an unpleasant explanation - Nature is more inventive than theoreticians may perceive. At the present moment many theoreticians are developing different explanations to the James Webb Space Telescope data (like discovery of little red dots) but they all still in the same general direction - this is about space-time (inflation of space at the very beginning, primordial black holes, super-Eddington accretion, fluctuations during Big Bang created temperature pattern of microwave background and many other ideas - they all about space-time, its distortion, history, fluctuations, other properties).  History hints they are all wrong. It seems that physics is waiting for some small crucial experimental result which would be "orthogonal" to all theory knew and may imagine.

References.

1.BCS theory - Wikipedia

2.Plum pudding model - Wikipedia

3.Nuclear shell model - Wikipedia

4.The Discovery of Nuclear Fission | Jeremy Bernstein | Inference

5.Discovery of nuclear fission - Wikipedia

Static Universe and cosmological constant - back to original Einstein equation with empirical cosmological constant. Light matter absorbs light, heats, generates pressure and holds galaxies from coalescence.

        Since the observation of the light scattering by the unknown yet mechanism [1] the idea of interacting with light ultrasmall particles appeared as a possible solution to accelerated rotation of galaxies ("dark matter problem") [2]. How that matter may help to solve the old problem of Static Universe - why gravity is not forcing all the galaxies to coalesce? 

        Big Bang seems to be falling apart: too many galaxies, too early, too many gigantic black holes, old galaxies are way too early and even the shape of primordial galaxies as observed by James Webb Space Telescope is wrong [3]. The return to static Universe needs a solution of many problems which were always present in cosmology. While the idea of recycling of energy may solve the problem of enormous age of static Universe [4], the problem still present - why at the very long time of existence Universe is not clumped back into some gigantic super-galaxy? 

        The answer may be connected with described in [2] undiscovered yet matter which presumably scatter the light to the equilibrium Bose gas with weak interaction (according to Bogolubov, the weakly interacting Bose-gas with non-conserved number of particles will demonstrate exactly Bose-Einstein distribution with exactly zero chemical potential - Planks formula). The temperature of such light matter (light in both senses - ultra-small total energy in femto to pico eV range and interacting with light, visible through the light scattering) may be considered as much higher than photons temperature (similar in the hot plasma temperature of light electrons is much higher compare to lower temperature of heavy ions). The distribution of those particles is unknown (they may be fermions) but they certainly will have pressure. This pressure assuming how many of those particles is present on the outskirts of the galaxies [2] seems to be enough to prevent gravitational collapse of galaxies thus keeping the Universe in equilibrium.

       And the best way to describe this static Universe is actually going back to the original Einstein equation [5] as it was introduced in 1917 with cosmological constant being empirical term which describes approximately that pressure. Original Einstein idea was absolutely correct - the best approximation of Universe is static Universe, and original cosmological constant prevents it from coalescing. The exact nature of this empirical term was, of course, unknown at Einstein time, and possibly with further research in this static Universe it will be modified into several terms.

       In previous posts before the light scattering on James Webb Space Telescope was so clearly visible, I considered a different mechanism for accelerated rotations of galaxies - influence of gravitational dipoles of any particle including light [6]. This idea is still valid, but it seems that the contribution of this factor will be many orders of magnitude smaller compare to what is described in [2]. Only careful future experiments may find whether such gravitational dipole exists at all, while the light scattering is already observed by JWST.

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.

https://tipikin.blogspot.com/2025/01/the-higher-z-stronger-effect-of-light.html

2.Tipikin: Axionic dark matter possibility from light scattering demonstrated by JWST for high z objects.

https://tipikin.blogspot.com/2025/03/axionic-dark-matter-possibility-from.html

3.Tipikin: Circular and irregular shape of record-breaking galaxies observed by JWST hints onto the much larger distance between them and Earth. Thus again supporting the idea of light scattering and tired light instead of Big Bang.

https://tipikin.blogspot.com/2025/03/circular-and-irregular-shape-of-record.html

4.Tipikin: Energy-matter cycle (aka water cycle on Earth) instead of Big Bang idea. How energy is converted back to matter.

https://tipikin.blogspot.com/2022/04/energy-matter-cycle-aka-water-cycle-on.html

5.Cosmological constant - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

6.2207.0131v1.pdf

https://vixra.org/pdf/2207.0131v1.pdf

Circular and irregular shape of record-breaking galaxies observed by JWST hints onto the much larger distance between them and Earth. Thus again supporting the idea of light scattering and tired light instead of Big Bang.

     The marvel of modern astrophysics, James Webb Space Telescope is making discovery after discovery and many of them puzzles the astrophysicists. Too many galaxies too early (according to Big Bang time line), little red dots with impossible velocities of gas near supermassive black hole (and such a black hole itself is too early for the young Universe etc.). While JWST already made several discoveries of galaxies at Z=13 and even 14, they all looks a little strange - all looks like circles, not even one has a classical oval shape (both spiral and elliptical galaxies at low resolution must be ovals). There is very low probability that all record-breaking galaxies are spirals observed at almost perpendicular to plane angle (that would make it looking perfect circle. 

     The explanation seems obvious - resolution of telescope is limited and by no means may JWST see details below its diffraction limit - approximately 3*10exp(-7) radian for wavelength of 2 um [1]. However, there is a problem here. Since according to Big Bang theory at high Z the difference at the observed distance with Z will be smaller and smaller, those galaxies are virtually all at the same distance of around 13 billions of light years. Even galaxy with Z=7 is actually 12.9 billions of light years away from us [2] - no real difference from the point of view of resolution of telescope. In order to evaluate the change of resolution from telescope to telescope, it is necessary first to see the galaxies at relatively high Z recorded by the predecessor of JWST - Hubble space telescope. Of course due to smaller mirror and absence of mid-IR capabilities it can not see galaxies at Z=13 and up (with some exceptions) but since galaxies with z=7-9 are almost at the same observational distance (~13 billions of light years if Big Bang is accepted) the comparison may be fair. The picture below is taken from [3] and the galaxies on photo are all with verified Z~8, and galaxies number 1,2,3,5 are looking like ovals.

It is easy to see, that Hubble Telescope indeed made photos of galaxies which looked as they should be - despite some of them are almost circles, many are ovals and even elongated ovals. Those galaxies if believe to Big Bang are all at ~13 billions of light years away. 

James Webb Space Telescope has larger mirror and thus must have better resolution (approximately 3 times better). It is clearly observed in the nearby Universe (say for Z~1). But since the galaxies at Z=12,13, 14 and up are almost at the same distance as galaxies at Z=8, JWST must deliver much better resolution of those galaxies (3 times better) and must see normal galaxies shapes (not dull circles all over again). Yet the discovery after discovery delivers the galaxies which looks like plain circle or irregular circle. The examples are: galaxy at Z=13 [4]

Galaxy at Z=14 [5]

Another galaxy at Z=13 [6]:

Another example of 4 galaxies all at the distance of ~13 billions of light years and all looking like circles [7]:

Sometimes galaxy with high Z has the elongated shape but it is situated in the field of strong lensing (so obviously distorted by lensing) [8]:

No improvement in resolution may be seen in resolution, despite from Big Bang idea they all are at approximately the same distance (around 13 billions of light years) as well as galaxies with Z~8 which are observed more or less normal already by Hubble telescope. Compare to the enormous improvement in resolution (Hubble made photos for upper row and JWST is for lower row) for galaxy cluster at Z~0.4 [9]:

Even assuming for high Z Hubble space telescope made pictures at central frequency around 1.6 um versus 2 um for James Webb Space Telescope (resolution is 1.25 worse for wavelength of 2 um compare to 1.6 um) the improvement in resolution still should be at least (6.5/2.4)*(1.6/2.0)=2.167 times (provided the Big Bang is correct, no light scattering is allowed and galaxies are at approximately the same distance of ~13 billions of light years). But obviously JWST only provides enormous improvement only at relatively low Z, not at high Z.

On the contrary, if the tired light hypothesis is accepted [10] situation changes dramatically. Now the distances for Z~14 would be much larger (Z~1 corresponds to ~10 billions of light years, Z=3 corresponds to ~20 billions of light years, Z=7 corresponds to ~30 billions of light years and Z=15 corresponds to ~40 billions of light years), so it is obvious that galaxies at high Z may be resolved poorer and it would need many hundreds of hours of accumulation to get the spectra (and that time must be almost the same in the case of Big Bang is right). Even more, the inevitable light scattering [10] will make the far galaxies blurred to the extent they may be only seen as a circle (and this circle is only having information about the light scattering properties, not initial galaxy oval view) [10,11]

It seems that even visual appearance of galaxies at high Z hints toward the paradigm shift from Big Bang cosmology to tired light cosmology. Both standard objects like supernovae at high Z (already visible at Z=3.6 and JWST is continuing the search) and non-standard objects like galaxies hints toward this decision. (The galaxies may theoretically be visible as circles because in principle it is possible from point of view of Big Bang that galaxies at Z=13-14 are so primordial, that the shape is essentially spherical cloud, so the shape must be visible as circle only). The spectra from those high Z galaxies however show a good content of oxygen, which means that stars already experienced many supernova events and galaxy shape is also expected to be one of the few standard ones. 

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.

https://tipikin.blogspot.com/2025/01/the-higher-z-stronger-effect-of-light.html

2.Galaxy Color and Redshift Chart » Talk — Zooniverse

https://www.zooniverse.org/talk/1268/576934

3.Yoshiaki Ono, Masami Ouchi et all "Evolution of the sizes of galaxies over 7<Z<12 revealed by the 2012 Hubble Ultra Deep Field Campaign" // The Astrophysical Journal, Vol.777 155, No2, 2013

DOI 10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/155

EVOLUTION OF THE SIZES OF GALAXIES OVER 7 < z < 12 REVEALED BY THE 2012 HUBBLE ULTRA DEEP FIELD CAMPAIGN - IOPscience

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/155

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/155/pdf

4.Witnessing the onset of reionization through Lyman-α emission at redshift 13 | Nature

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-08779-5

5.Photometric detection at 7.7 microns of a galaxy beyond redshift 14 with JWST/MIRI

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.18462

6.Big Bang-era galaxy found with JWST? | Popular Science

https://www.popsci.com/science/big-bang-galaxy-james-webb-space-telescope/

7.Record distant galaxy confirmed with the James Webb Space Telescope - Cosmic Dawn Center

https://cosmicdawn.dk/news/record-distant-galaxy-confirmed-with-the-james-webb-space-telescope/

8.Second-most distant galaxy discovered using James Webb Space Telescope | Penn State University

https://www.psu.edu/news/eberly-college-science/story/second-most-distant-galaxy-discovered-using-james-webb-space-telescope

9.JWST takes a peek at the first ever galaxies | astrobites

https://astrobites.org/2022/09/03/jwst-takes-a-peek-at-the-first-ever-galaxies/

10.D.S.Tipikin "Tired light hypothesis possibly got confirmation by direct observation of light scattering"

2311.0060v1.pdf

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