Astronomy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for astronomers and astrophysicists. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

After yesterday's announcement of the Kepler telescope finding a huge amount of newly observed exoplanets, i saw a headline claiming that as much as 22% of sun like stars in the universe have planets in their habitable zone. There are loads of stars in the universe, so the number of planets in the habitable zone has to be enourmous. But how many of the stars in the universe are about the same size as our sun?

share|improve this question
up vote 11 down vote accepted

This is a question that concerns the initial mass function (IMF) - an empirical (that is, defined by observations rather than theory) function that describes the statistical distribution of stellar masses.

Edwin Salpeter (1955) was the first to describe the IMF, though if you read Chabrier (2003) there are some reasonably comprehensive explanations of the theory and history. However, these lecture notes are a fair bit more accessible.

From the approximations in the UCSC lecture notes I linked above, I get that around 4% of stars are between 0.7 and 1.3 solar masses (92% are between 0.1 and 0.7 solar masses!).

There are perhaps 100 billion stars in a galaxy and 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, giving something on the order of $4\times 10^{20}$ (400 billion billion) stars that are about ($\pm 30\%$) one solar mass.

share|improve this answer
Great response. I haven't followed your link(s) yet, but I seem to recall there being quite a lot of assumptions made about actually getting the IMF. I don't personally know how sensitive it is to different assumptions. – astromax Nov 8 '13 at 17:56
@astromax Oh yes, assumptions and approximations galore! My 4% should be accurate to within a few per cent, anyway. Star formation isn't my area of research, so it would take me a while to understand all the deficiencies in that simple model. Perhaps there's some easily accessible survey data of our own galaxy that will have better accuracy (at least in our own neighbourhood). If I have time to learn some new things I might post an answer to your new IMF question. – Moriarty Nov 8 '13 at 23:26
Good answer. I presume the 4% is 4% of all objects with $M>0.075M_{\odot}$? I guess the only thing I'd say is that it's a huge extrapolation to go from the IMF in our solar neighbourhood to assume that it is the same everywhere in the Universe (but unavoidable). – Rob Jeffries Mar 12 '15 at 21:10
@Moriarty: lecture notes link is dead. – ThePopMachine Mar 13 '15 at 16:40
One of the statements: "There are perhaps 100 billion stars in a galaxy and 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe, giving something on the order of 4×10204×1020 (400 billion billion) stars that are about (±30%±30%) one solar mass" is something I hear all the time even on astronomy shows and it is totally inaccurate. About 5% of galaxies are giant ones like the Milky Way. Most are dwarf galaxies with far fewer stars. For instance, in our Local Group of about 40 galaxies, the two giant ones are the Milky Way and Andromeda. Then there is the Large Magellanic Cloud and Triangulem Galaxy – William Hirtz Feb 14 at 20:58

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.