Since there is a greater concentration of stars the closer you get to the center of the Milky Way, including massive stars that end of their lives as supernovas, astronomers expect to find a greater percentage of heavier isotopes among the elements there.

Counter to their expectations, the researchers found none of the expected gradient in the isotope ratios.

Ah shucks, merger maniacs are disappointed once again.

Actually, stars are moving away from our central core star, not toward it. Didn't you maniacs pay attention this story years ago?

https://phys.org/...ays.html

This is complete nonsense. In attempts to "prove" their pet theories of "Big Bang" creation, ageing (put on a little weight) etc. ad nauseum, these astrophysicists defy even commonsense to show the "mastery" of their profession and their bankruptcy at the same time!
Anybody with common sense would know that the stability of atoms or isotopes depends on their "binding energy", no matter how they are formed. In any process, the more stable the isotope of an atom is, the higher proportion of that isotope will be formed. For lower atomic number (fewer protons in the nuclei) atoms like silicon, the isotope with 1:1 ratio of protons and neutrons is the most stable, irrespective of whether it was formed 12 billion years ago or formed now. So what "ageing" (putting on more weight or more neutrons!) of the atoms, these "astrophysicists" are talking about? Do they have no shame that they lack elementary knowledge of chemistry and physics or even plain common sense?

This is complete nonsense.

The way I read this is in the young galaxy stars will produce the Si 28 isotope of Silicon.
Later generations of stars will produce heavier isotopes. My interpretation would be later stars would absorb some of the Si 28 created by the earlier generation of now supernovaed stars and those Si 28 isotopes would be able to capture additional neutrons or electrons - I don't know if electron capture can happen in stars but it is a way for atoms to gain neutrons https://en.wikipe..._capture
Consequently, as the galaxy ages, there becomes an ever diverse range and increasing abundance of isotopes, which by their nature, are heavier than those created in early generations of stars. One would therefore expect older galaxies to have a greater proportion of heavier isotopes and those isotopes to be clustered in the star forming regions, this paper says this is not the case and the distribution is more evenly spread than expected.

"The way I read this is in the young galaxy stars will produce the Si 28 isotope of Silicon. Later generations of stars will produce heavier isotopes."

It should be rather the other way around, if at all. Proportion of a particular isotope formed would be proportional to its higher stability. If some proportion of less stable isotopes were formed (statistically) in a previous cycle of production, their proportion will be less in the next cycle, because of their relative instability. Formation of isotopes depends solely on the energy requirements and does not depend on the presence (concentration) of other isotopes in a stoichiometric way like a chemical equilibrium. There is no equilibrium in nuclear processes, these are instant (relatively) and irreversible processes, energy alone determines the outcome! Can you reverse or stop the decay of a radioactive nuclei to its initial state in any possible way?

It should be rather the other way around, if at all. Proportion of a particular isotope formed would be proportional to its higher stability. If some proportion of less stable isotopes were formed (statistically) in a previous cycle of production, their proportion will be less in the next cycle, because of their relative instability.

Si28 is the most stable isotope and its relative abundance -on earth- is 92.33% the other two stable isotopes are Si29 (4.67%) and Si30 (3.1%)