#Cosmology folk: the universe as-is exists because the very early stages had density variations, stuff clumped. That's fairly obvious, the odds of the universe being *perfectly* evenly distributed are basically impossible, only one way to do it (and, quantum, not even allowed?)
So what's the thinking on *how* unlikely our "unclumpiness" is? Compared to...I don't know, perfect homogeneity versus weirdly clumpy?
@_thegeoff I wonder what a good measure of clumpiness is? Would prob need a scale between perfect distribution of uniform density and everything touching each other. Would think it would require some sort of logarithmic measure.
@ottaross Yup, pretty good summary of what I'm trying to ask.
Clumpiness needs some notion of scale: at some scale, a big ball of water is extremely clumpy, because most of it is ~empty and there are some very heavy nuclei strewn around. At more coarser scale, it's very uniform.
(At sufficiently coarse scales ~everything becomes uniformish, but the coarseness of that scale depends on the thing and IMO there might be multiple changes back-and-forth below that.)
@robryk Good point – the macro and the micro, the observable world and the quantum scale. Large differences in the universe based on what yardstick you're using. @_thegeoff