<p>The precise presolar history isn't known. I'll try to tell a likely story backward in time.</p>

<p>Our sun probably has brothers and sisters scattered throughout the Milky Way. Further back in time our sun likely was part of on open star cluster like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyades_%28star_cluster%29">Hyades</a>. Open star clusters are not stable and eject stars over hundreds of millions of years. (<a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/01/120117-sun-solar-system-born-stars-m67-space-science/">More about attempts to find Sun's siblings</a>.)</p>

<p>Such star clusters typically form in nebulae like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_Nebula">Orion Nebula</a>. Dense nebulae typically contain short-lived stars with multiple solar masses, which typically end as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova">supernova</a>, adding heavy atoms to the nebula and surrounding <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium">interstellar medium</a>. Our sun is rich in heavy atoms, easy to detect in spectral lines of sunlight or in solar wind; those atoms cannot have formed in the sun, because its core is not yet hot enough to form these elements; some will never form in the sun. Earth mainly consists of chemical elements heavier than helium. Stars like our sun, rich in heavy elements, are called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity">population I stars</a> (astronomers call all chemical elements besides hydrogen and helium metals). Population I stars (and Earth) can only have formed, at least in parts, from supernova remnants. Old stars, born in a time, when the immediate predecessor(s) of our sun were born, can still be found in the Milky Way. They are called population II stars. They contain less material made of heavy elements than our sun, but still more than provided by the big bang. Therefore there must have existed even older stars, called population III stars.</p>

<p>Supernovae also can destabilize the interstellar medium due to shock fronts, eventually leading to local collapse especially of nebulae.</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presolar_grains">Presolar grains</a> are still raining down on Earth; "the elements in these particles were made at different times (and places) in the early Milky Way".</p>

<p>By this, the likely answer to the question is, that we probably consist of remnants of several supernovae, and of several generations of supernovae.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-12T19:54:25.307Z
+1 Thanks, this is a clear answer. About "opinion": Is this an opinion shared by most of the specialists? Is it mainstream consensus? The typical working hypothesis? Etc. (Could you include something on that in your answer?)
Řídící
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-12T19:58:53.550Z
Nice answer. Would be cool to work Metallicity of stars (i.e. - pop I, II, and III) stars into your answer.
astromax
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-12T23:32:47.927Z
@GlenTheUdderboat Tried to stay as close as I could to the current prevailing pov.
Gerald
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-12T19:44:42.813Z
2014-01-12T23:36:15.677Z
2014-01-12T23:36:15.677Z
Gerald
<p>It is highly unlikely that we're made out of stuff from only one star. The simplest reason for this, is that we have gold on earth. Gold is (we believe) created by the collision of two massive stars (neutron stars probably).</p>

<p>If there was only one predecessor to the sun, it would be extremely likely that all of its mass would still be nearby. The total mass of the entire solar system is much to small to have formed for example nickel and copper in any noticable amount. You would have to have a star of about 5 times the mass of the solar system. That mass doesn't go away.</p>

<p>You could, of course speculate that a couple of neutron stars at 2-3 times the solar system initially created everything, then split up into around 2-3 different solar systems. But we have quite a lot of chemical elements such as hydrogen and helium in the sun, which there would not be a lot of in neutron stars (due to it having to have fused into heavier elements).</p>

<p>All stars go through a few stages from their inception to their death: </p>

<p>Initially, the theory is that hydrogen was the prevalent chemical element. It's the "simplest" chemical element. When helium is compressed, due to the gravity of a star it's temperature will rise up. Once it reaches around 10 million degrees, fusion starts. Fusion of hydrogen creates helium.</p>

<p>Helium, being heavier than hydrogen will sink to the center of the star. Later, you will have helium fusion, if the star is massive enough to compress helium enough. Helium will generate oxygen and carbon.</p>

<p>A very massive star, multiple suns in mass, is able to fuse oxygen and carbon - which creates a lot of different chemical elements; neon, sodium, magnesium, sulfur and silicon. Later reactions transform these elements into calcium, iron, nickel, chromium, copper and others.</p>

<p>Eventually, many stars will explode into a supernova. In that process, a lot of these materials will be ejected into space, where they will gather due to gravity again.</p>

<p>The sun was probably created in a messy universe, where hydrogen and perhaps helium came together in a region where there was a lot of these other chemical elements.</p>

<p>Sources: </p>

<ul>
<li><a href="http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/supernovae.php" rel="nofollow">http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/supernovae.php</a>, <a href="http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/stars/fusion.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/stars/fusion.shtml</a> - stars must be able to fuse progressivly heavier elements.</li>
<li><a href="http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2013-19" rel="nofollow">http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2013-19</a> - Gold created by colliding neutron stars.</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-15T00:34:02.413Z
Your argument is really confused. You've said that because we have gold on Earth this must mean that we cannot be the product of a single star. While I agree that we almost certainly are created from the bi-products of many stars in the galaxy, your logic is flawed. You then proceed to explain basic stellar astrophysics (without any mention of sources whatsoever), which is not what the OP is asking for. Also, what is "eon" ??
astromax
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-15T08:15:32.977Z
I've corrected the article; neon, not eon. I also think that explaining *why* it is unlikely that we'd get much of both for example helium and gold from a single star is helpful, even though he didn't ask. There won't be much helium left in a gold producing star. Also it's been observed that neutron star collisions create gold and could amount to all the gold in the universe: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/gold-seen-neutron-star-collision-debris.
frodeborli
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-15T15:26:45.830Z
That is an incorrect argument. Supernovae produce gold. Also, what evidence do you have to support that "there won't be much helium left in a gold producing star". I'm calling you out - I am now convinced that you are making up nearly everything you have said on this site.
astromax
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-15T15:27:54.693Z
I'm really sorry if this comes off as an attack, but you're doing more harm than good by answering in this fashion (that is, with no proof of what you're claiming, and additionally, nearly always incorrect in some sense).
astromax
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-15T15:36:51.847Z
Well, I haven't said much on this site. I've only answered two questions. Everything else have been questions, where I've been trying to check if my "world view" is correct, and I've done that by trying to explain my "world view" as a foundation for my question. On both answers I've submitted am fairly certain that I am correct. I've not seen many citations in other answers, so I assumed it was not required. I'm going to update my two answers with sources later.
frodeborli
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-15T15:52:41.883Z
@astromax Just to be clear; are you saying that it is theoretically possible that one single star could become supernova, and at the same time leave enough helium to ignite the sun? At the same time, the star would be massive enough to fuse heavy elements into elements such as gold. But it wouldn't be much more massive than the solar system? Could a star contain enough fusable helium to spawn off a new star, after its death?
frodeborli
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-15T16:06:32.933Z
Nope, that is not what I am saying. But your comments seem to indicate that you believe the ONLY way gold is produced in the universe is by neutron star collisions. This is factually incorrect. I have also already mentioned that I do not disagree with the claim that we are made from the bi-products of more than one star. I simply disagree with the logic of your argument and I believe your answer to be of particularly low quality.
astromax
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-15T16:17:08.347Z
@astromax The "low quality" flag is not to be used for factually incorrect answers. Any answer that attempts to answer the question (however invalid) with good form should not be flagged. Downvotes are used in these cases instead. Thanks.
called2voyage
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-15T16:55:17.663Z
@astromax Gold is in fact NOT created in single stars, but in TWO stars colliding, according to http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2013-19. Therefore I maintain that gold is the *simplest* proof of the solar system not coming from a single ancient star. As for the rest of your arguments, that there will be a lot of helium remaining after a supernova, I want to see sources. But you are entitled to downvote me of course.
frodeborli
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-15T18:03:11.770Z
@astromax This article basically agrees with all of my claims in my answer. http://science.time.com/2013/07/18/gold-in-space-a-collision-between-stars-produces-moon-sized-riches/. I don't understand why you don't follow my logic, or why I need to cite stuff that I assume is common knowledge; like the elements a star creates depend on its mass...
frodeborli
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-15T18:36:48.053Z
@called2voyage Duly noted. My bad - I got a bit over-zealous with this particular answer. frodeborli, yes, I have read that paper. My problem is twofold: 1) You should always cite, even if it's common knowledge in the astronomical community. Your example of common knowledge is in fact demonstrably NOT common since, it has not been conclusively shown to be the only cause of gold production in the unvierse. Additionally, it makes your answer better! 2) The other issue I had was that some of your explanations are really poor (not just on this answer, mind you).
astromax
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-15T18:37:54.010Z
Now I have to stop writing comments. If you would like me to discuss why I find some of your answers very unappealing please let me know and we can discuss (when I'm not currently at work :) ).
astromax
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-15T19:10:55.907Z
Thank you. English is a secondary language for me, one that I usually use in trivial day-to-day conversations with a Spanish speaking colleague. Another reason is that much of the terminology you use here, is completely unknown to me and it is hard to ask a question the proper way - for example in a previous question where the answer was simply "world line".
frodeborli
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-17T19:56:22.500Z
Another part of the problem with this theory is that stellar collisions are exceedingly rare to the point of being nearly impossible. Supernovae on the other hand, happen all the time because stars just grow too fast to survive for long. And despite our cultural attachment to gold, it's not outlandishly rare, as elements go.
Ernie
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-13T13:33:30.703Z
2014-01-15T16:51:01.673Z
2014-01-15T16:51:01.673Z
frodeborli
<p>The short answer is: we are made from the "stuff" contributed by many stars. The interstellar medium from which the Solar system formed was enriched by all sorts of elements synthesised in previous generations of stars. Most of the heavy elements are formed and injected into the ISM in a supernova explosion of a massive star.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-08T09:56:53.903Z
About half the heavy elements beyond iron are formed (by the s-process) and dispersed into the ISM (through mixing and winds) by AGB stars that do not end in a supernova explosion.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-13T10:47:48.410Z
2014-01-13T10:47:48.410Z
Walter
<blockquote>
  <p>[T]his coincidence enabled stars in the late stages of their lives to turn helium into carbon, oxygen and most of the other atoms that you and I are made of. [...] [W]e're made of star stuff.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><sup>Max Tegmark, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17797249"><em>Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality</em></a>, p. 64</sup></p>

<p>Assuming that the Sun is not in the late stages of its life, I read that as that we are made mostly of star dust, but <em>not</em> Sun dust. Rather, we apparently are mostly made of atoms produced by earlier (now dead and buried) stars.</p>

<p>My question is whether it is likely that there was <em>one</em> immidiate (o.a. carbon-producing) predecessor star to the Solar System, or whether the Solar system likely has more than one (perhaps many) (o.a. carbon-producing) "parent stars"? (And, there seems to be also also a third "possibility": that the build-up of, say, carbon takes more than one <em>generation</em> of stars.) What's the (hi)story here?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-13T14:31:07.103Z
Great question! Stellar history is a really interesting area to dig into.
called2voyage
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-01-14T02:38:12.720Z
Vaguely related on [physics.se]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3769/how-many-times-has-the-stuff-in-our-solar-system-been-recycled-from-previous-s
dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten
<star><earth><solar-system>
Are we made of the stuff of one star or more stars?
Řídící
# Are we made of the stuff of one star or more stars?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-01-12)

> [T]his coincidence enabled stars in the late stages of their lives to turn helium into carbon, oxygen and most of the other atoms that you and I are made of. [...] [W]e're made of star stuff.

Max Tegmark, [*Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality*](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17797249), p. 64

Assuming that the Sun is not in the late stages of its life, I read that as that we are made mostly of star dust, but *not* Sun dust. Rather, we apparently are mostly made of atoms produced by earlier (now dead and buried) stars.

My question is whether it is likely that there was *one* immidiate (o.a. carbon-producing) predecessor star to the Solar System, or whether the Solar system likely has more than one (perhaps many) (o.a. carbon-producing) "parent stars"? (And, there seems to be also also a third "possibility": that the build-up of, say, carbon takes more than one *generation* of stars.) What's the (hi)story here?

**Tags:** star, earth, solar-system

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Great question! Stellar history is a really interesting area to dig into.  
> **username_2**: Vaguely related on [physics.se]: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/3769/how-many-times-has-the-stuff-in-our-solar-system-been-recycled-from-previous-s  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2014-01-12. Score: 17

The precise presolar history isn't known. I'll try to tell a likely story backward in time.

Our sun probably has brothers and sisters scattered throughout the Milky Way. Further back in time our sun likely was part of on open star cluster like the [Hyades](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyades_%28star_cluster%29). Open star clusters are not stable and eject stars over hundreds of millions of years. ([More about attempts to find Sun's siblings](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/01/120117-sun-solar-system-born-stars-m67-space-science/).)

Such star clusters typically form in nebulae like the [Orion Nebula](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_Nebula). Dense nebulae typically contain short-lived stars with multiple solar masses, which typically end as [supernova](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova), adding heavy atoms to the nebula and surrounding [interstellar medium](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium). Our sun is rich in heavy atoms, easy to detect in spectral lines of sunlight or in solar wind; those atoms cannot have formed in the sun, because its core is not yet hot enough to form these elements; some will never form in the sun. Earth mainly consists of chemical elements heavier than helium. Stars like our sun, rich in heavy elements, are called [population I stars](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity) (astronomers call all chemical elements besides hydrogen and helium metals). Population I stars (and Earth) can only have formed, at least in parts, from supernova remnants. Old stars, born in a time, when the immediate predecessor(s) of our sun were born, can still be found in the Milky Way. They are called population II stars. They contain less material made of heavy elements than our sun, but still more than provided by the big bang. Therefore there must have existed even older stars, called population III stars.

Supernovae also can destabilize the interstellar medium due to shock fronts, eventually leading to local collapse especially of nebulae.

[Presolar grains](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presolar_grains) are still raining down on Earth; "the elements in these particles were made at different times (and places) in the early Milky Way".

By this, the likely answer to the question is, that we probably consist of remnants of several supernovae, and of several generations of supernovae.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: +1 Thanks, this is a clear answer. About "opinion": Is this an opinion shared by most of the specialists? Is it mainstream consensus? The typical working hypothesis? Etc. (Could you include something on that in your answer?)  
> **username_4**: Nice answer. Would be cool to work Metallicity of stars (i.e. - pop I, II, and III) stars into your answer.  
> **username_3**: @GlenTheUdderboat Tried to stay as close as I could to the current prevailing pov.  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2014-01-13. Score: 4

It is highly unlikely that we're made out of stuff from only one star. The simplest reason for this, is that we have gold on earth. Gold is (we believe) created by the collision of two massive stars (neutron stars probably).

If there was only one predecessor to the sun, it would be extremely likely that all of its mass would still be nearby. The total mass of the entire solar system is much to small to have formed for example nickel and copper in any noticable amount. You would have to have a star of about 5 times the mass of the solar system. That mass doesn't go away.

You could, of course speculate that a couple of neutron stars at 2-3 times the solar system initially created everything, then split up into around 2-3 different solar systems. But we have quite a lot of chemical elements such as hydrogen and helium in the sun, which there would not be a lot of in neutron stars (due to it having to have fused into heavier elements).

All stars go through a few stages from their inception to their death:

Initially, the theory is that hydrogen was the prevalent chemical element. It's the "simplest" chemical element. When helium is compressed, due to the gravity of a star it's temperature will rise up. Once it reaches around 10 million degrees, fusion starts. Fusion of hydrogen creates helium.

Helium, being heavier than hydrogen will sink to the center of the star. Later, you will have helium fusion, if the star is massive enough to compress helium enough. Helium will generate oxygen and carbon.

A very massive star, multiple suns in mass, is able to fuse oxygen and carbon - which creates a lot of different chemical elements; neon, sodium, magnesium, sulfur and silicon. Later reactions transform these elements into calcium, iron, nickel, chromium, copper and others.

Eventually, many stars will explode into a supernova. In that process, a lot of these materials will be ejected into space, where they will gather due to gravity again.

The sun was probably created in a messy universe, where hydrogen and perhaps helium came together in a region where there was a lot of these other chemical elements.

Sources:

* <http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/supernovae.php>, <http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/astronomy/stars/fusion.shtml> - stars must be able to fuse progressivly heavier elements.
* <http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2013-19> - Gold created by colliding neutron stars.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: Your argument is really confused. You've said that because we have gold on Earth this must mean that we cannot be the product of a single star. While I agree that we almost certainly are created from the bi-products of many stars in the galaxy, your logic is flawed. You then proceed to explain basic stellar astrophysics (without any mention of sources whatsoever), which is not what the OP is asking for. Also, what is "eon" ??  
> **username_5**: I've corrected the article; neon, not eon. I also think that explaining *why* it is unlikely that we'd get much of both for example helium and gold from a single star is helpful, even though he didn't ask. There won't be much helium left in a gold producing star. Also it's been observed that neutron star collisions create gold and could amount to all the gold in the universe: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/gold-seen-neutron-star-collision-debris.  
> **username_4**: That is an incorrect argument. Supernovae produce gold. Also, what evidence do you have to support that "there won't be much helium left in a gold producing star". I'm calling you out - I am now convinced that you are making up nearly everything you have said on this site.  
> **username_4**: I'm really sorry if this comes off as an attack, but you're doing more harm than good by answering in this fashion (that is, with no proof of what you're claiming, and additionally, nearly always incorrect in some sense).  
> **username_5**: Well, I haven't said much on this site. I've only answered two questions. Everything else have been questions, where I've been trying to check if my "world view" is correct, and I've done that by trying to explain my "world view" as a foundation for my question. On both answers I've submitted am fairly certain that I am correct. I've not seen many citations in other answers, so I assumed it was not required. I'm going to update my two answers with sources later.  
> **username_5**: @username_4 Just to be clear; are you saying that it is theoretically possible that one single star could become supernova, and at the same time leave enough helium to ignite the sun? At the same time, the star would be massive enough to fuse heavy elements into elements such as gold. But it wouldn't be much more massive than the solar system? Could a star contain enough fusable helium to spawn off a new star, after its death?  
> **username_4**: Nope, that is not what I am saying. But your comments seem to indicate that you believe the ONLY way gold is produced in the universe is by neutron star collisions. This is factually incorrect. I have also already mentioned that I do not disagree with the claim that we are made from the bi-products of more than one star. I simply disagree with the logic of your argument and I believe your answer to be of particularly low quality.  
> **username_1**: @username_4 The "low quality" flag is not to be used for factually incorrect answers. Any answer that attempts to answer the question (however invalid) with good form should not be flagged. Downvotes are used in these cases instead. Thanks.  
> **username_5**: @username_4 Gold is in fact NOT created in single stars, but in TWO stars colliding, according to http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2013-19. Therefore I maintain that gold is the *simplest* proof of the solar system not coming from a single ancient star. As for the rest of your arguments, that there will be a lot of helium remaining after a supernova, I want to see sources. But you are entitled to downvote me of course.  
> **username_5**: @username_4 This article basically agrees with all of my claims in my answer. http://science.time.com/2013/07/18/gold-in-space-a-collision-between-stars-produces-moon-sized-riches/. I don't understand why you don't follow my logic, or why I need to cite stuff that I assume is common knowledge; like the elements a star creates depend on its mass...  
> **username_4**: @username_1 Duly noted. My bad - I got a bit over-zealous with this particular answer. username_5, yes, I have read that paper. My problem is twofold: 1) You should always cite, even if it's common knowledge in the astronomical community. Your example of common knowledge is in fact demonstrably NOT common since, it has not been conclusively shown to be the only cause of gold production in the unvierse. Additionally, it makes your answer better! 2) The other issue I had was that some of your explanations are really poor (not just on this answer, mind you).  
> **username_4**: Now I have to stop writing comments. If you would like me to discuss why I find some of your answers very unappealing please let me know and we can discuss (when I'm not currently at work :) ).  
> **username_5**: Thank you. English is a secondary language for me, one that I usually use in trivial day-to-day conversations with a Spanish speaking colleague. Another reason is that much of the terminology you use here, is completely unknown to me and it is hard to ask a question the proper way - for example in a previous question where the answer was simply "world line".  
> **username_6**: Another part of the problem with this theory is that stellar collisions are exceedingly rare to the point of being nearly impossible. Supernovae on the other hand, happen all the time because stars just grow too fast to survive for long. And despite our cultural attachment to gold, it's not outlandishly rare, as elements go.  

---

### Answer by username_7 on 2014-01-13. Score: 3

The short answer is: we are made from the "stuff" contributed by many stars. The interstellar medium from which the Solar system formed was enriched by all sorts of elements synthesised in previous generations of stars. Most of the heavy elements are formed and injected into the ISM in a supernova explosion of a massive star.

> **Comments:**
> **username_8**: About half the heavy elements beyond iron are formed (by the s-process) and dispersed into the ISM (through mixing and winds) by AGB stars that do not end in a supernova explosion.  

---

