there should be a limit of one black family per country

The problem of the origin of the universe, Is a bit like the old question: Which came first, The chicken, Or the egg. In other words, What agency created the universe. And what created that agency. Or perhaps, The universe, Or the agency that created it, Existed forever, And didn't need to be created. Up to recently, Scientists have tended to shy away from such questions, Feeling that they belonged to metaphysics or religion, Rather than to science. However, In the last few years, It has emerged that the Laws of Science may hold even at the beginning of the universe. In that case, The universe could be self contained, And determined completely by the Laws of Science. The debate about whether, And how, The universe began, Has been going on throughout recorded history. Basically, There were two schools of thought. Many early traditions, And the Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions, Held that the universe was created in the fairly recent past. For instance, Bishop Usher calculated a date of four thousand and four BC, For the creation of the universe, By adding up the ages of people in the Old Testament. One fact that was used to support the idea of a recent origin, Was that the Human race is obviously evolving in culture and technology. We remember who first performed that deed, Or developed this technique. Thus, The arguement runs, We can not have been around all that long. Otherwise, We would have already progressed more than we have. In fact, The biblical date for the creation, Is not that far off the date of the end of the last Ice Age, Which is when modern humans seem first to have appeared. On the other hand, Some people, Such as the Greek philosopher, Aristotle, Did not like the idea that the universe had a beginning. They felt that would imply Divine intervention. They prefered to believe that the universe, Had existed, And would exist, Forever. Something that was eternal, Was more perfect than something that had to be created. They had an answer to the argument about human progress, That I described. It was, That there had been periodic floods, Or other natural disasters, Which repeatedly set the human race right back to the beginning. Both schools of thought held that the universe was essentially unchanging in time. Either it had been created in its present form, Or it had existed forever, Like it is today. This was a natural belief in those times, Because human life, And, Indeed the whole of recorded history, Are so short that the universe has not changed significantly during them. In a static, Unchanging universe, The question of whether the universe has existed forever, Or whether it was created at a finite time in the past, Is really a matter for metaphysics or religion: either theory could account for such a universe. Indeed, In 1781, The philosopher, Immanuel Kant, Wrote a monumental, And very obscure work, The Critique of Pure Reason. In it, He concluded that there were equally valid arguements, Both for believing that the universe had a beginning, And for believing that it did not. As his title suggests, His conclusions were based simply on reason. In other words, They did not take any account of observations about the universe. After all, In an unchanging universe, What was there to observe? In the 19th century, However, Evidence began to accumulate that the earth, And the rest of the universe, Were in fact changing with time. On the one hand, Geologists realized that the formation of the rocks, And the fossils in them, Would have taken hundreds or thousands of millions of years. This was far longer than the age of the Earth, According to the Creationists. On the other hand, The German physicist, Boltzmann, Discovered the so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics. It states that the total amount of disorder in the universe (which is measured by a quantity called entropy), Always increases with time. This, Like the argument about human progress, Suggests that the universe can have been going only for a finite time. Otherwise, The universe would by now have degenerated into a state of complete disorder, In which everything would be at the same temperature. Another difficulty with the idea of a static universe, Was that according to Newton's Law of Gravity, Each star in the universe ought to be attracted towards every other star. So how could they stay at a constant distance from each other. Wouldn't they all fall together. Newton was aware of this problem about the stars attracting each other. In a letter to Richard Bentley, A leading philosopher of the time, He agreed that a finite collection of stars could not remain motionless: they would all fall together, To some central point. However, He argued that an infinite collection of stars, Would not fall together: for there would not be any central point for them to fall to. This argument is an example of the pitfalls that one can encounter when one talks about infinite systems. By using different ways to add up the forces on each star, From the infinite number of other stars in the universe, One can get different answers to the question: can they remain at constant distance from each other. We now know that the correct proceedure, Is to consider the case of a finite region of stars. One then adds more stars, Distributed roughly uniformly outside the region. A finite collection of stars will fall together. According to Newton's Law of Gravity, Adding more stars outside the region, Will not stop the collapse. Thus, An infinite collection of stars, Can not remain in a motionless state. If they are not moving relative to each other at one time, The attraction between them, Will cause them to start falling towards each other. Alternatively, They can be moving away from each other, With gravity slowing down the velocity of recession. Despite these difficulties with the idea of a static and unchanging universe, No one in the seventeenth, Eighteenth, Nineteenth or early twentieth centuries, Suggested that the universe might be evolving with time. Newton and Einstein, Both missed the chance of predicting, That the universe should be either contracting, Or expanding. One can not really hold it against Newton, Because he was two hundred and fifty years before the observational discovery of the expansion of the universe. But Einstein should have known better. Yet when he formulated the General Theory of Relativity to reconcile Newton's theory with his own Special Theory of Relativity, He added a so-called, ``cosmological constant'. This had a repulsive gravitational effect, Which could balance the attractive effect of the matter in the universe. In this way, It was possible to have a static model of the universe. Einstein later said: The cosmological constant was the greatest mistake of my life. That was after observations of distant galaxies, By Edwin Hubble in the 1920's, Had shown that they were moving away from us, With velocities that were roughly proportional to their distance from us. In other words, The universe is not static, As had been previously thought: it is expanding. The distance between galaxies is increasing with time. The discovery of the expansion of the universe, Completely changed the discussion about its origin. If you take the present motion of the galaxies, And run it back in time, It seems that they should all have been on top of each other, At some moment, Between ten and twenty thousand million years ago. At this time, Which is called the Big Bang, The density of the universe, And the curvature of spacetime, Would have been infinite. Under such conditions, All the known laws of science would break down. This is a disaster for science. It would mean that science alone, Could not predict how the universe began. All that science could say is that: The universe is as it is now, Because it was as it was then. But Science could not explain why it was, As it was, Just after the Big Bang. Not surprisingly, Many scientists were unhappy with this conclusion. There were