Okay, let's tackle this problem step by step. First, I need to understand what's being asked. The question is about finding the ratio of silicon atoms in the photospheres of two stars, Star_1 and Star_2. Both stars have similar masses to the Sun but different elemental abundances. 

The given data includes their metallicity (Fe/H) and abundances relative to each other ([Si/Fe] and [Mg/Si]). The Sun's abundances are provided as 12 + log(nFe/nH) = 7.5 and 12 + log(nMg/nH) = 7. Wait, those numbers look like the logarithm of the abundances compared to hydrogen. Let me parse that correctly.

The solar values are given in terms of 12 + log(nX/nH), where nX is the number density of element X. For the Sun, this is 7.5 for iron and 7 for magnesium. Let me convert these to actual ratios. 

The formula is 12 + log(nX/nH) = X, so solving for nX/nH gives 10^(X - 12). So for Fe, it's 10^(7.5 - 12) = 10^(-4.5). Similarly, for Mg, it's 10^(7 - 12) = 10^(-5). So the solar abundance ratios are [Fe/H] = 0, which means the metallicity is solar. 

Now, the stars have their own abundances. Let's parse the given data:

For Star_1: [Si/Fe]_1 = 0.3 dex. Since the Sun's [Fe/H] is 0, this means that the ratio of Si to Fe in Star_1 is 10^0.3 times the Sun's ratio. Similarly, [Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3 dex. But wait, Star_2's abundance is given relative to what? The notation [Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3 dex. Typically, abundance ratios in stars are given relative to the Sun. So [Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3 means that Mg is 10^0.3 times more abundant than Si in Star_2 compared to the Sun. But wait, the problem states that [Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3 dex. Assuming that's the ratio of Mg to Si in Star_2 relative to the Sun. So, [Mg/Si] = log10(N_Mg / N_Si) - log10(N_Mg_sun / N_Si_sun). Therefore, the ratio N_Mg / N_Si in Star_2 is 10^0.3 times that of the Sun.

But let's get back to the problem. We need to find the ratio of Si atoms in Star_1 and Star_2. So, N_Si(Star_1) / N_Si(Star_2). To find this, we need to express the number of silicon atoms in each star's photosphere in terms of the solar values and the given abundance ratios.

First, let's recall that the abundance ratios are given. For Star_1, [Si/Fe]_1 = 0.3. Since the Sun's [Fe/H] is 0, this means (N_Si / N_Fe) in Star_1 = 10^0.3 * (N_Si_sun / N_Fe_sun). Similarly, for Star_2, [Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3. Assuming this is relative to the Sun, (N_Mg / N_Si) in Star_2 = 10^0.3 * (N_Mg_sun / N_Si_sun).

But wait, the problem statement says "assuming LTE and using the EW method". Hmm, EW method refers to equivalent width measurements, which are used to determine elemental abundances. LTE (Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium) is an assumption about the ionization states of elements. But perhaps this is more relevant to the method than the calculation. Maybe it's just context, and the key is the abundance ratios provided.

But let's proceed. Let's denote the solar abundances as:

For the Sun:
- [Fe/H] = 0 → N_Fe_sun / N_H_sun = 10^(0 - 12 + 12) = 10^0? Wait, no. Wait, the formula given is 12 + log(nX/nH) = X. So for the Sun, Fe: 12 + log(nFe/nH) = 7.5 → log(nFe/nH) = -4.5 → nFe/nH = 10^(-4.5). Similarly, Mg: 12 + log(nMg/nH) = 7 → log(nMg/nH) = -5 → nMg/nH = 10^(-5).

Therefore, the solar values are:

nFe_sun / nH_sun = 10^(-4.5) ≈ 3.16 × 10^(-5)

nMg_sun / nH_sun = 10^(-5) = 1 × 10^(-5)

nSi_sun / nH_sun = 10^(-4.5) × (nSi/nFe) × (nFe/nH) → Wait, no. Wait, the solar [Fe/H] is 0, so nFe_sun / nH_sun = 10^(Fe_sun - 12 + 12) = 10^(Fe_sun - 12). Wait, maybe I should think in terms of metallicity. Let me clarify.

The formula given is 12 + log10(nX/nH) = X, where X is a value. For the Sun, X is 7.5 for Fe and 7 for Mg. Therefore:

For Fe: 12 + log10(nFe/nH) = 7.5 → log10(nFe/nH) = -4.5 → nFe/nH = 10^(-4.5) ≈ 3.16 × 10^(-5)

Similarly, for Mg: 12 + log10(nMg/nH) = 7 → log10(nMg/nH) = -5 → nMg/nH = 10^(-5) = 1 × 10^(-5)

So solar abundances are:

nFe = 3.16e-5 * nH

nMg = 1e-5 * nH

nSi = ? Well, we can find nSi_sun / nH_sun from the given [Si/Fe]_Sun. Wait, but the problem states that Star_1 and Star_2 are compared to the Sun. Wait, the question is about the ratio of Si in Star_1 and Star_2. So perhaps we need to express the Si abundance in each star relative to the Sun.

Wait, let's think again.

The problem gives:

For Star_1:
[Si/Fe]_1 = 0.3 dex. Since the Sun's [Fe/H] is 0, this means that (n_Si / n_Fe) in Star_1 is 10^0.3 times the solar value of (n_Si / n_Fe). Similarly, for Star_2, [Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3 dex, which would mean (n_Mg / n_Si) in Star_2 is 10^0.3 times the solar value of (n_Mg / n_Si).

But wait, the solar [Fe/H] is 0. So [Si/Fe]_Sun = log(n_Si / n_Fe) - log(n_Si_sun / n_Fe_sun). But since [Fe/H]_Sun = 0, then log(n_Fe / n_H) = log(n_Fe_sun / n_H_sun). Similarly, [Si/Fe]_Sun would be log(n_Si / n_Fe) - log(n_Si_sun / n_Fe_sun) = [Si/Fe]_Sun. But the problem doesn't provide solar [Si/Fe], so perhaps we need to assume that the solar [Si/Fe] is 0 as well. Wait, but the problem states that [Fe/H]_1 = 0 for Star_1, which is the metallicity. So for Star_1, [Si/Fe]_1 = 0.3, so (n_Si / n_Fe)_1 = 10^0.3 × (n_Si_sun / n_Fe_sun)

Similarly, for Star_2, [Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3, so (n_Mg / n_Si)_2 = 10^0.3 × (n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun)

But the problem is asking for the ratio N_Si(Star_1) / N_Si(Star_2). How can we express each Si abundance in terms of the solar values?

Wait, let's think in terms of the solar abundances. Let's assume that the stars are similar in metallicity, but the problem doesn't specify. Wait, the problem says "assuming LTE and using the EW method". Maybe that's not necessary here. Let's focus on the given data.

First, let's compute the solar [Si/Fe] and [Mg/Si]. Wait, but the problem doesn't provide these, so perhaps we can compute them. Let's compute [Si/Fe]_Sun and [Mg/Si]_Sun.

Given solar nFe/nH = 10^(-4.5) ≈ 3.16e-5

nMg/nH = 10^(-5) = 1e-5

nSi/nH = 10^(-4.5) if assuming the same [Si/Fe] as [Fe/H]. Wait, but the problem states that [Fe/H]_1 = 0 for Star_1, which means that the metallicity is solar. So maybe [Si/Fe]_Sun is 0.3? Wait, no. Wait, the problem states that for Star_1, [Si/Fe]_1 = 0.3. The Sun's [Fe/H] is 0, so [Si/Fe]_Sun would be (n_Si / n_Fe)_Sun = (n_Si_sun / n_Fe_sun). But if the Sun's [Fe/H] is 0, then (n_Fe / n_H)_Sun = (n_Fe_sun / n_H_sun) = 10^(0 - 12 + 12) = 10^0? Wait, no. Wait, the formula is 12 + log(nX/nH) = X. For the Sun, X for Fe is 7.5. So log(nFe/nH) = -4.5. So nFe/nH = 10^(-4.5) ≈ 3.16e-5. Similarly, nMg/nH = 10^(-5) = 1e-5.

Therefore, (n_Si / n_Fe)_Sun = (n_Si_sun / n_Fe_sun) = (n_Si_sun / nH_sun) * (nH_sun / n_Fe_sun). Since nH_sun is the hydrogen number density, and n_Fe_sun = 3.16e-5 nH_sun. So (n_Si_sun / n_Fe_sun) = (n_Si_sun / nH_sun) / (n_Fe_sun / nH_sun) = (n_Si_sun / nH_sun) / (3.16e-5). But we don't know n_Si_sun / nH_sun. Wait, but perhaps we can compute [Si/Fe]_Sun. The [Si/Fe] is log(n_Si/n_Fe) - log(n_Si_sun/n_Fe_sun). Since the Sun's [Fe/H] is 0, log(n_Fe/n_H) = log(n_Fe_sun/n_H_sun) = -4.5. Similarly, [Si/Fe]_Sun = log(n_Si/n_Fe) - log(n_Si_sun/n_Fe_sun) = log(n_Si/n_Fe) - log(n_Si_sun/(3.16e-5 nH_sun)).

But this seems complicated. Maybe we need to make an assumption here. Alternatively, perhaps the problem is designed so that we can compute the ratio without knowing the exact solar abundances. Let's see.

Let's denote the solar abundances as:

n_Fe_sun = 3.16e-5 nH_sun

n_Mg_sun = 1e-5 nH_sun

n_Si_sun = x * nH_sun (where x is to be determined)

But without knowing x, perhaps we can express the ratio in terms of x. But maybe there's another approach.

Alternatively, perhaps we can use the given abundance ratios and express everything in terms of the solar abundances.

For Star_1:

[Si/Fe]_1 = 0.3 → log(n_Si / n_Fe) - log(n_Si_sun / n_Fe_sun) = 0.3

Similarly, [Fe/H]_1 = 0 → log(n_Fe / n_H) - log(n_Fe_sun / n_H_sun) = 0 → log(n_Fe / n_H) = log(n_Fe_sun / n_H_sun) → n_Fe / n_H = n_Fe_sun / n_H_sun → n_Fe = n_Fe_sun (since the ratio is the same as solar).

So for Star_1, n_Fe = n_Fe_sun. Therefore, log(n_Si / n_Fe) = log(n_Si / n_Fe_sun) = log(n_Si / (3.16e-5 nH)).

But [Si/Fe]_1 is 0.3, so:

log(n_Si / n_Fe) - log(n_Si_sun / n_Fe_sun) = 0.3

Which simplifies to:

log(n_Si / n_Fe) = log(n_Si_sun / n_Fe_sun) + 0.3

But since n_Fe = n_Fe_sun, then:

log(n_Si / n_Fe_sun) = log(n_Si_sun / n_Fe_sun) + 0.3

Exponentiating both sides:

n_Si / n_Fe_sun = (n_Si_sun / n_Fe_sun) * 10^0.3

Therefore, n_Si = n_Fe_sun * (n_Si_sun / n_Fe_sun) * 10^0.3

But n_Fe_sun = 3.16e-5 nH_sun, and n_Si_sun = x nH_sun. Therefore:

n_Si = (3.16e-5 nH_sun) * (x nH_sun / (3.16e-5 nH_sun)) ) * 10^0.3

Simplify:

n_Si = x nH_sun * 10^0.3

So the number density of Si in Star_1 is 10^0.3 times solar Si.

Similarly, for Star_2:

[Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3 → log(n_Mg / n_Si) - log(n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun) = 0.3

So:

log(n_Mg / n_Si) = log(n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun) + 0.3

Exponentiating:

n_Mg / n_Si = (n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun) * 10^0.3

Therefore, n_Mg = n_Si * (n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun) * 10^0.3

But the problem gives [Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3, so this ratio holds. But how do we relate this to the number of Si atoms?

Wait, we need to find the ratio N_Si(Star_1) / N_Si(Star_2). Assuming the stars have the same mass, but different abundances. Wait, but the problem doesn't mention the total mass of the stars. However, the question is about the ratio of silicon atoms in their photospheres. Since both stars are similar to the Sun in mass (1.5 and 1.2 times), but the problem says "the correct answer to this question", so perhaps the ratio is based on their abundance ratios and metallicity.

But we need to express N_Si for each star. The number of Si atoms would be proportional to the number density times the volume, but since we're taking the ratio, the volume would cancel out. So N_Si = n_Si * Volume. But the problem doesn't give the sizes of the stars. However, the question is about the ratio of the photospheric silicon atoms, which would depend on the surface area and volume. Wait, but the photosphere's number density depends on the star's size. Wait, but for main-sequence stars, the radius is larger for higher mass. Wait, but Star_1 is 1.5 solar masses, Star_2 is 1.2 solar masses. The radius of a star is roughly proportional to mass^α, where α is around 1 for low masses. So Star_1 would be more massive, so larger radius, but the photospheric density (n_Si) depends on the star's atmosphere. However, the problem states that the abundances are measured in the photosphere, so the number density is given as n_Si, which already accounts for the star's radius and structure. Wait, but the problem states "the elemental abundances of these two stars", so perhaps the abundances are given in terms of mass fractions, but in practice, in stars, the abundances are given in terms of number densities in the photosphere. So perhaps we don't need to worry about the volume, as the problem is asking for the ratio of number densities, not total atoms. Wait, but the question is "the ratio of silicon atoms in the photospheres of Star_1 and Star_2". The number of atoms would depend on the volume. However, without knowing the sizes of the stars, this seems impossible. Unless the problem assumes that the photospheric density is the same as the solar value, but that's not the case.

Wait, perhaps we need to make an assumption here. If the problem is asking for the ratio of number densities (n_Si), then we can proceed as before. But the problem says "the ratio of silicon atoms in the photospheres", which would be the total number of Si atoms. To find that, we need the number density multiplied by the volume of the photosphere. However, since the problem doesn't give the sizes of the stars, perhaps we can assume that the photospheric volume scales with radius squared times some other factor. Alternatively, perhaps the problem is designed such that the ratio of the number densities is the same as the ratio of the number of atoms, which would require that the volume of the photosphere scales in a certain way. But I'm not sure.

Alternatively, perhaps the problem is only considering the surface photosphere, and the number density is given. If we can find the ratio of number densities, then the ratio of atoms would be the same as the ratio of number densities multiplied by the ratio of surface areas. But again, without information on the sizes, this complicates things.

Wait, but the problem might be simplifying by assuming that the number of silicon atoms is directly proportional to the number density, implying that the stars are of the same size, but that's not stated. Alternatively, perhaps the problem is considering the ratio of the number densities, which would be sufficient if we're only comparing the abundances. But the question asks for the ratio of silicon atoms in the photospheres. Since the photosphere's volume depends on the star's radius, and the number of atoms is n * Volume, but the problem doesn't give the radii. Therefore, perhaps the problem is assuming that the stars have the same radius, which isn't the case. Alternatively, perhaps the problem is considering the ratio of the number densities, which would be sufficient if we're assuming that the stars have the same radius. But the problem states different masses, so their radii are different.

This is getting complicated. Maybe I need to think differently. Let's focus on the given abundance ratios and see if we can compute the ratio of Si atoms based on that.

First, for Star_1:

[Si/Fe]_1 = 0.3 → (n_Si / n_Fe) = 10^0.3 × (n_Si_sun / n_Fe_sun)

But we can express (n_Si / n_Fe) in terms of solar values. Similarly, for Star_2:

[Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3 → (n_Mg / n_Si) = 10^0.3 × (n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun)

Our goal is to find N_Si(Star_1) / N_Si(Star_2) = [n_Si(Star_1) * Volume(Star_1)] / [n_Si(Star_2) * Volume(Star_2)]

But without knowing the volumes, we can't compute this ratio. However, perhaps the problem assumes that the stars have the same radius, which would make Volume(Star_1) / Volume(Star_2) = (R1 / R2)^3. But since the problem doesn't state that, this approach is incorrect.

Alternatively, perhaps the problem is using the fact that the stars have the same mass, so their luminosity is the same (since L ~ M^3 for main-sequence stars), but I don't see how that helps here.

Wait, maybe the problem is assuming that the photospheric density of Si is proportional to the abundance ratio. Let's try that.

For Star_1:

n_Si(Star_1) = 10^0.3 * n_Si_sun

For Star_2:

From [Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3 → (n_Mg / n_Si) = 10^0.3 * (n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun)

But we need to relate this to n_Si. Let's express n_Si in terms of n_Mg and solar abundances.

n_Si = n_Mg / [10^0.3 * (n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun)]

But we don't know n_Mg. Wait, but the problem gives [Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3, so perhaps we can express n_Mg in terms of n_Si.

Wait, perhaps we can find n_Si in terms of solar abundances.

Let me try again. For Star_2:

[Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3 → log(n_Mg / n_Si) - log(n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun) = 0.3

So log(n_Mg / n_Si) = log(n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun) + 0.3 → (n_Mg / n_Si) = (n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun) * 10^0.3 → n_Mg = n_Si * (n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun) * 10^0.3

But we need to find n_Si. However, without additional information, we can't proceed. Wait, but perhaps the problem is designed such that the ratio of Si in Star_1 to Si in Star_2 is determined solely by their abundance ratios. Let's suppose that the stars have the same volume for simplicity, even though that's not stated. Then:

N_Si(Star_1) / N_Si(Star_2) = [n_Si(Star_1) / n_Si(Star_2)]

But to find n_Si(Star_2), we need to relate it to the given [Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3.

Wait, let's try to express n_Si in terms of n_Mg and solar abundances.

From Star_2's abundance:

n_Mg = 10^0.3 * (n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun) * n_Si

But we can also relate n_Mg and n_Si through the stellar structure. However, without knowing the star's structure, this is difficult. Alternatively, perhaps the problem is assuming that [Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3 means that the ratio of Mg to Si in Star_2 is 10^0.3 times the solar ratio. The solar [Mg/Si] ratio is log(n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun) = log(1e-5 / x), where x is n_Si_sun / nH_sun. But we don't know x. Wait, but perhaps we can express the solar [Mg/Si] ratio in terms of the solar abundances.

Wait, the solar [Mg/Si] would be log(n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun) = log(1e-5 / x). But we don't know x. However, the problem gives [Fe/H]_1 = 0 for Star_1, which means that the metallicity is solar. So perhaps the solar [Mg/Si] is zero? No, that's not necessarily true. Wait, [Fe/H] is the logarithmic abundance of Fe relative to the Sun. The [Mg/Si] would be log(n_Mg / n_Si) - log(n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun). But since [Mg/Si]_Sun is not given, perhaps we can assume that the solar [Mg/Si] is the same as the solar [Fe/H], which is zero. But that's not correct because [Fe/H] is a measure of Fe abundance, while [Mg/Si] is a measure of Mg vs Si.

Alternatively, perhaps the solar [Mg/Si] is not zero. Let's compute it.

From the given solar information:

nFe_sun = 3.16e-5 nH_sun

nMg_sun = 1e-5 nH_sun

Assuming solar metallicity, but we need to find n_Si_sun. However, the problem doesn't provide n_Si_sun. Perhaps we can use the fact that the problem gives [Si/Fe]_1 = 0.3 for Star_1. Since [Si/Fe]_1 = 0.3, and [Fe/H]_1 = 0, then (n_Si / n_Fe) = 10^0.3 × (n_Si_sun / n_Fe_sun). But since n_Fe_sun = 3.16e-5 nH_sun, and n_Si_sun is unknown, we can express n_Si in terms of n_Si_sun.

But this seems like a loop. Maybe we need to make an assumption here. Let's assume that the solar [Mg/Si] ratio is the same as the solar [Fe/H], which is zero. Wait, but [Fe/H] is zero, so log(n_Fe / n_H) = log(n_Fe_sun / n_H_sun). Similarly, [Mg/Si] would be log(n_Mg / n_Si) - log(n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun). If we assume [Mg/Si]_Sun is zero, then log(n_Mg / n_Si) = log(n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun). But from the data given:

n_Mg_sun = 1e-5 nH_sun

n_Fe_sun = 3.16e-5 nH_sun

But without knowing n_Si_sun, we can't proceed. Therefore, perhaps the problem is designed such that the solar [Mg/Si] is a certain value, but it's not given. Alternatively, perhaps the problem assumes that [Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3 means that (n_Mg / n_Si) = 10^0.3 × (n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun). But again, without knowing the solar [Mg/Si], we can't compute this.

Wait, perhaps the problem is designed to use the fact that [Si/Fe]_1 = 0.3 and [Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3, and that the stars have the same mass. But the question is about the ratio of silicon atoms in their photospheres, which would depend on their sizes. However, the problem states that both stars have masses 1.5 and 1.2 times solar. So perhaps the problem is using the fact that the number of silicon atoms is proportional to the abundance ratio multiplied by the volume. But without knowing the volumes, this approach is invalid. Alternatively, perhaps the problem is designed to ignore the volume and only consider the number density ratio, which would be incorrect, but perhaps that's what is expected here.

Alternatively, perhaps the problem is using the fact that the number of silicon atoms is proportional to the number density times the surface area. If we assume that the stars are similar in size (which they are not, but the problem doesn't specify), then the ratio would be based on the number densities. But again, the problem states different masses, so this is incorrect.

This seems like a dead end. Let's try a different approach. Let's assume that the problem is only considering the ratio of the number densities, ignoring the volume. Then:

N_Si(Star_1) / N_Si(Star_2) = [n_Si(Star_1) / n_Si(Star_2)] × [V(Star_1) / V(Star_2)]

But since the problem doesn't give the volumes, perhaps it's intended to assume that the volume scales with radius squared times some other factor. However, without knowing the radii, we can't proceed. Therefore, perhaps the problem is designed to be solved by considering the ratio of the number densities, assuming that the volume cancels out. But this would be incorrect.

Alternatively, perhaps the problem is designed to use the fact that the photospheric density of elements can be approximated using the Saha equation or other stellar atmospheres models, but that's beyond the scope here.

Wait, perhaps there's another approach. Let's consider that the problem gives [Si/Fe]_1 and [Mg/Si]_2. We need to find the ratio of Si atoms. Let's express the number of Si atoms in each star in terms of the solar values.

For Star_1:

[Si/Fe]_1 = 0.3 → (n_Si / n_Fe) = 10^0.3 × (n_Si_sun / n_Fe_sun)

But n_Fe = n_Fe_sun (since [Fe/H]_1 = 0). Therefore:

n_Si = 10^0.3 × (n_Si_sun / n_Fe_sun) × n_Fe_sun = 10^0.3 × n_Si_sun

So the number density of Si in Star_1 is 10^0.3 times the solar number density of Si.

For Star_2:

[Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3 → (n_Mg / n_Si) = 10^0.3 × (n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun)

But we need to relate this to n_Si. However, without knowing n_Mg, we can't find n_Si. Wait, but perhaps we can express n_Si in terms of n_Mg.

From [Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3:

n_Si = n_Mg / [10^0.3 × (n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun)]

But we need to find n_Si. However, without knowing n_Mg, this approach is stuck. Wait, but perhaps we can find n_Mg in terms of n_Si using another relation. However, the problem doesn't provide any other abundance ratios. Therefore, this approach is insufficient.

Alternatively, perhaps the problem is intended to use the fact that the solar [Fe/H] is zero, and [Si/Fe]_1 = 0.3, so (n_Si / n_Fe) = 10^0.3 × (n_Si_sun / n_Fe_sun). But since n_Fe_sun = 3.16e-5 nH_sun, and n_Si_sun is unknown, we can express n_Si as 10^0.3 × (n_Si_sun / 3.16e-5 nH_sun) × 3.16e-5 nH_sun = 10^0.3 × n_Si_sun. Wait, that's circular. Let me try again.

n_Si = 10^0.3 × (n_Si_sun / n_Fe_sun) × n_Fe_sun = 10^0.3 × n_Si_sun

So n_Si(Star_1) = 10^0.3 × n_Si_sun

Similarly, for Star_2, we have [Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3 → (n_Mg / n_Si) = 10^0.3 × (n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun)

But we need to express n_Si in terms of solar values. However, we can write:

n_Mg = 10^0.3 × (n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun) × n_Si

But we need another equation to relate n_Mg and n_Si. However, the problem doesn't provide it. Therefore, this approach is stuck.

Wait, perhaps the problem is designed to assume that the solar [Mg/Si] is the same as the solar [Fe/H], which is zero. But that's not necessarily true. Alternatively, perhaps the problem is designed to use the fact that the solar [Mg/Si] is the same as the solar [Fe/H], which is zero, so (n_Mg / n_Si) = (n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun). Then:

From [Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3 → (n_Mg / n_Si) = 10^0.3 × (n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun)

But if (n_Mg / n_Si) = (n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun), then:

(n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun) = 10^0.3 × (n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun)

Which implies 1 = 10^0.3 → which is false. Therefore, this assumption is incorrect.

Alternatively, perhaps the problem is designed to use the fact that the solar [Mg/Si] is a certain value, but it's not provided. Therefore, perhaps the problem is intended to be solved by considering the ratio of the number densities without considering the star's volume.

If we proceed under the assumption that the ratio of the number of silicon atoms is equal to the ratio of the number densities (ignoring volume), then:

N_Si(Star_1) / N_Si(Star_2) = [n_Si(Star_1) / n_Si(Star_2)]

From Star_1:

n_Si(Star_1) = 10^0.3 × n_Si_sun

From Star_2:

We need to express n_Si(Star_2). Let's assume that in Star_2, the [Mg/Si] ratio is 0.3 dex higher than the solar ratio. Therefore:

n_Mg(Star_2) = 10^0.3 × n_Mg_sun

But from the problem, [Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3 → (n_Mg / n_Si) = 10^0.3 × (n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun)

If we assume that n_Mg(Star_2) = 10^0.3 × n_Mg_sun, then:

(10^0.3 × n_Mg_sun) / n_Si(Star_2) = 10^0.3 × (n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun)

Simplify:

n_Si(Star_2) = n_Si_sun

Therefore, n_Si(Star_2) = n_Si_sun

Then, the ratio:

N_Si(Star_1) / N_Si(Star_2) = (10^0.3 × n_Si_sun) / n_Si_sun = 10^0.3 ≈ 2.0

But the options are A. ~3.9, B. ~1.2, C. ~0.8, D. ~12.6. 10^0.3 is approximately 2.0, which is option B (~1.2) is 10^0.1, which is ~1.26. Wait, 10^0.3 is approximately 2.0, which is not one of the options. Wait, but perhaps I made a mistake.

Wait, 10^0.3 is approximately 2.0. So the ratio would be ~2.0, but the options don't have this. The closest is option B (~1.2) and option A (~3.9). Wait, perhaps I made a mistake in the assumption.

Wait, if n_Mg(Star_2) = 10^0.3 × n_Mg_sun, then:

n_Si(Star_2) = (n_Mg(Star_2) / 10^0.3) × (n_Si_sun / n_Mg_sun)

But if n_Mg(Star_2) = 10^0.3 × n_Mg_sun, then:

n_Si(Star_2) = (10^0.3 × n_Mg_sun / 10^0.3) × (n_Si_sun / n_Mg_sun) ) = n_Si_sun

So n_Si(Star_2) = n_Si_sun

Therefore, N_Si(Star_1) / N_Si(Star_2) = (10^0.3 × n_Si_sun) / n_Si_sun = 10^0.3 ≈ 2.0. But the options don't have 2.0. Hmm.

Alternatively, perhaps the problem is designed to use the fact that the stars have different masses and sizes, so the ratio of the number of Si atoms is the product of the ratio of number densities and the ratio of the volumes. But without knowing the volumes, this is impossible.

Alternatively, perhaps the problem is designed to assume that the stars are main-sequence stars, and use the relation between mass and radius. For main-sequence stars, radius scales roughly as mass^0.8 to 1.0. Let's assume R ∝ M^0.9. Then the volume would be V ∝ R^3 ∝ M^2.7. Therefore, for Star_1 (1.5 M_sun) and Star_2 (1.2 M_sun):

V1 / V2 = (1.5 / 1.2)^2.7 ≈ (1.25)^2.7 ≈ 2.0

Then, the number of Si atoms would be N_Si = n_Si × V

So the ratio N_Si(Star_1) / N_Si(Star_2) = [n_Si(Star_1) × V1] / [n_Si(Star_2) × V2] = (n_Si(Star_1)/n_Si(Star_2)) × (V1/V2)

From earlier, we have n_Si(Star_1) = 10^0.3 × n_Si_sun

But we need to find n_Si(Star_2). From [Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3:

n_Mg / n_Si = 10^0.3 × (n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun)

But if we assume that n_Mg(Star_2) = 10^0.3 × n_Mg_sun, then n_Si(Star_2) = n_Si_sun

Therefore, n_Si(Star_1)/n_Si(Star_2) = 10^0.3

V1/V2 = (1.5/1.2)^2.7 ≈ 2.0

So the total ratio is 10^0.3 × 2.0 ≈ 2.0 × 2.0 = 4.0, which is close to option A (~3.9). But this is speculative.

Alternatively, perhaps the problem is designed to use the fact that the number of silicon atoms is proportional to the abundance ratio times the surface area. But again, the problem doesn't provide the sizes.

Alternatively, perhaps the problem is using the fact that the number of silicon atoms is proportional to the abundance ratio, and the answer is simply 10^0.3 ≈ 2.0, but this is not one of the options. Therefore, perhaps the problem is intended to be solved differently.

Wait, perhaps the problem is using the ratio of the abundances as given, without considering the volume. Let's re-examine the problem statement.

The question is: "Calculate the ratio of silicon atoms in the photospheres of these two stars."

The key here is "in the photospheres". The photosphere's number density depends on the star's temperature, gravity, and metallicity. However, since both stars have the same metallicity ([Fe/H] = 0 for Star_1), but different masses and radii, their atmospheric layers (photospheres) will have different densities. However, this requires detailed stellar modeling, which is beyond the scope here. Therefore, perhaps the problem is designed to ignore this and use the abundance ratios directly.

If we proceed under this assumption, then:

For Star_1:

n_Si / n_Fe = 10^0.3 × (n_Si_sun / n_Fe_sun)

But n_Fe = n_Fe_sun (since [Fe/H]_1 = 0), so n_Si = 10^0.3 × n_Si_sun

For Star_2:

[Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3 → n_Mg / n_Si = 10^0.3 × (n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun)

But we need to relate n_Si to solar. Let's assume that in Star_2, the ratio n_Mg / n_Si is 10^0.3 times the solar ratio. Then:

n_Si = (n_Mg / 10^0.3) × (n_Si_sun / n_Mg_sun)

But without knowing n_Mg, we can't proceed. However, the problem gives [Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3, which is a ratio, so perhaps the number of Mg atoms is 10^0.3 times the number of Si atoms in the photosphere relative to the solar ratio.

But if we assume that in the photosphere, the ratio [Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3, then:

n_Mg / n_Si = 10^0.3 × (n_Mg_sun / n_Si_sun)

But we need to express this in terms of the solar abundances. Let's rearrange:

n_Si = (n_Mg / 10^0.3) × (n_Si_sun / n_Mg_sun)

But again, without n_Mg, this is stuck. Therefore, perhaps the problem is intended to be solved by considering that the ratio of the number of Si atoms is simply the product of the ratio of their abundance ratios and the ratio of their surface areas. However, without the areas, this is impossible.

Alternatively, perhaps the problem is designed to use the fact that the number of silicon atoms is proportional to the abundance ratio, and the ratio is simply 10^0.3 ≈ 2.0, but this is not one of the options.

Wait, looking at the options again: A. ~3.9, B. ~1.2, C. ~0.8, D. ~12.6. The closest to 10^0.3 (≈2.0) is option B (~1.2) and option C (~0.8). But 10^0.3 is about 2.0, which is not listed. Hmm.

Alternatively, perhaps the problem is considering the ratio of the number densities multiplied by the ratio of the surface areas. Let's assume the surface area is proportional to the square of the radius. If we can find the ratio of the radii, then we can find the ratio of the surface areas.

Assuming the stars are main-sequence stars, the radius scales roughly with mass to the power of 0.8 to 1.0. Let's take R ∝ M^0.9 for main-sequence stars. Then:

R1 = 1.5^0.9 × R_sun

R2 = 1.2^0.9 × R_sun

Therefore, R1/R2 = (1.5/1.2)^0.9 ≈ (1.25)^0.9 ≈ 1.23

Then, V1/V2 = (R1/R2)^3 ≈ (1.23)^3 ≈ 1.86

Now, the number of Si atoms would be n_Si × V. So:

N_Si(Star_1)/N_Si(Star_2) = [n_Si(Star_1)/n_Si(Star_2)] × (V1/V2)

From earlier:

n_Si(Star_1) = 10^0.3 × n_Si_sun

But we need to find n_Si(Star_2). From [Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3:

n_Mg(Star_2)/n_Si(Star_2) = 10^0.3 × (n_Mg_sun/n_Si_sun)

But we need to relate n_Mg(Star_2) to n_Si(Star_2). However, the problem doesn't provide any additional information to link n_Mg and n_Si in Star_2. Therefore, this approach is stuck.

Perhaps the problem is designed to ignore the volume and only consider the ratio of the number densities. Then:

N_Si(Star_1)/N_Si(Star_2) = [n_Si(Star_1)/n_Si(Star_2)]

But from Star_1:

n_Si(Star_1) = 10^0.3 × n_Si_sun

From Star_2, we need to find n_Si(Star_2). Since [Mg/Si]_2 = 0.3:

n_Mg(Star_2) = 10^0.3 × (n_Mg_sun/n_Si_sun) × n_Si(Star_2)

But without knowing n_Mg(Star_2), we can't proceed. Therefore, this approach is invalid.

I think I've exhausted all possible approaches and can't find a consistent way to calculate the ratio given the constraints. However, based on the initial calculation where the ratio of the number densities is 10^0.3 ≈ 2.0, which is closest to option B (~1.2) but not exactly. Alternatively, perhaps the problem expects to use the fact that the ratio of the number of silicon atoms is the product of the ratio of the abundances and the ratio of the surface areas. If we assume that the ratio of the surface areas is (1.5/1.2)^2.7 ≈ 2.0, then the total ratio would be 2 × 2 = 4, which is close to option A (~3.9). Therefore, the answer might be A. ~3.9.
</think>