[Pseudoscience-is-malarkey (OP)]

Sorry to bother you guys with another stupid question, but even if an asteroid belt is in the inner star system of a giant star or two, it seems to me that they (star(s)) still would not be able to produce enough solid matter for a densely populated rock field that stretches its entire orbital path. What are your thoughts on this controversial topic?

[Petrochemicals]

I do not understand what you are asking

[paul cotter]

Petro, that makes two of us.

[alancalverd]

Not sure that  asteroids are the product of live stars, more, I thought, remnants of past explosions.

Anyway, the concept of a dense belt is surely temporary? Mutual gravitational attraction would surely tend towards aggregation into a sparse collection of planetoids?

[Pseudoscience-is-malarkey (OP)]

I do not understand what you are asking

I'll make it easier for you. Is it possible for an asteroid belt orbiting a star to be as populated as the one depicted in Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back? Even if the star or stars it obits are extremely large and the rocks orbit them relatively close? I gather they call space "space" for a reason: because there is a sh1t load of it. Stars (as you all know of course) produce all the matter around it (with the EXTREMLY rare exception of a rogue object entering our system). I have a hard time believing that stars can produce enough matter for such a pronounced, consistent asteroid ring that can fill-up an entire orbit. Even protoplanetary disks are nowhere near that populated.

Not sure that asteroids are the product of live stars, more, I thought, remnants of past explosions.

Explosions from bodies it's star(s) created.

[Petrochemicals]

I do not understand what you are asking

I'll make it easier for you. Is it possible for an asteroid belt orbiting a star to be as populated as the one depicted in Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back? Even if the star or stars it obits are extremely large and the rocks orbit them relatively close? I gather they call space "space" for a reason: because there is a sh1t load of it. Stars (as you all know of course) produce all the matter around it (with the EXTREMLY rare exception of a rogue object entering our system). I have a hard time believing that stars can produce enough matter for such a pronounced, consistent asteroid ring that can fill-up an entire orbit. Even protoplanetary disks are nowhere near that populated.

Not sure that asteroids are the product of live stars, more, I thought, remnants of past explosions.

Explosions from bodies it's star(s) created.

Betelgeuse is a large star, low gravity so I do non see the stipulation of star size as important.

[chris]

Space scientists speculate that asteroid belts are the remnants of disintegrated planets that failed to form fully. The entity that was accreting was, we believe, pulled apart by gravitational resonances from other nearby large orbiting bodies. The ensuing tug of war pulls the material apart by overcoming the intrinsic gravity of the material itself that would otherwise pull the material together.

The disintegrated material may then re-coalesce into "asteroids" (misnomer, because they are not related to stars as the name suggests, this was because early astronomers saw them twinkling and thought they must be stars) which settle into the most gravitationally neutral position around the Sun, balancing the pull from the other planets and themselves.

Asteroids like Bennu - https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/interviews/story-bennu-asteroid - have helped to confirm that asteroids are universally not huge chunks of rock: some are gravel piles.

They're still moving a bit. Solar pressure (YORP effect) and other impacts mean they are not static

[evan_au]

It is thought that the Solar System's asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter was disturbed by the gravitational influence of Jupiter, which had a stronger gravitational influence than the tiny mass in the asteroid belt. This led to a sparse asteroid belt, with asteroids occasionally colliding and shattering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt#Formation

One mechanism which would allow a dense asteroid belt to persist without collapsing into a planet would be if the asteroid field is inside the Roche limit of a star.
For the Sun, radius =600,000km, and Roche limit = 700,000km, ie almost skimming the surface of the Sun (the Parker Solar probe only approached to within 6 million km of the Sun's surface). An asteroid belt this close to the Sun would evaporate rock and/or be disrupted by solar wind.

However, a dense asteroid field could exist within the Roche limit of a planet, such as the denser parts of Saturn's rings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit#Rigid_satellites

[Petrochemicals]

Maybe around brown dwarfs. I think anything near the sun will either be drawn to the sun or form a planet due to the confinements of space and the greater effect any gravitational pertubations will have due to the small diameter orbit,  so you have to look toward outer regions. Given our sun drew most of the material in to itself perhaps a smaller star would leave more material further out and hopefully no gas giants to collect up so much material from any asteroid belt that is left as residue from the rocky planet zone.

In a sentence, only if the material in the asteroid belt is not enough to form a planet.

[chris]

In passing, I thought this was a nice opportunity to flag up this week's Titans of Science episode, which is a deep dive into asteroids and planetary science with NHM's Sara Russell