Skip to main content
Physics

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

4
  • $\begingroup$ This is the track that I was trying to go down, and you and Luboš are starting to shed some light on it. $\endgroup$
    – Clinton Pierce
    Commented Jan 24, 2011 at 18:23
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think this is a vast underestimate because it ignores that mixing takes place in the ISM on timescales that are short compared with the lifetime of the Galaxy. Many, if not most, of the $\sim 10^9$ massive stars that were born billions of years before the Sun in our Galaxy have contributed nuclei to the solar system. $\endgroup$
    – ProfRob
    Commented Feb 15, 2017 at 9:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Rob, I think we may be answering different question. Your "the Sun is the product of the ∼ billion stars" answers how many stars have contributed mass to what is not the sun (and I'm sure you're right). The question I gave a lower limit to is more along the lines of "What is the average number of stars that a nucleon current in the sun has been in before?" (and I've ignored the deep philosophical difficulty of tracking the identity of a nucleon through nuclear transformations, too, but the OP didn't seem ready for that). $\endgroup$
    – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten
    Commented Feb 15, 2017 at 18:34
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, it is a more subtle question and varies a lot from element to element I think. $\endgroup$
    – ProfRob
    Commented Feb 15, 2017 at 23:40