In bygone days – during the early 1990s – the author and his friend, Vladimir Temchenko, heatedly debated the nature of unexplained coincidences, or packets as we called them. It was interesting to see how my friend’s attitude toward packets changed. The usual skepticism of a physicist who had graduated from the Moscow Physical-Technical Institute was gradually transformed, first into interest, then into the certainty that some deep secrets of physics were behind them.

We saw packets everywhere; it seemed that they permeated the whole world. We began to collect them; our friends and acquaintances, noting strange coincidences, rushed to tell us about them. But this was just the start of an amazing investigation of the phenomenon of coincidences. In 1995, we began painstaking experiments aimed at analyzing sequences of “random” numbers. Here, the object of attention consisted of the numbers obtained as a result of measurements of physical quantities and demographic parameters with a meaninglessly high precision.

It turned out that the irregularity in the distribution of instances of sequence fragment coincidences is systematic in nature and constitutes an insoluble problem for the probabilistic approach. The author concludes that our understanding of the random is fundamentally wrong. Take, for example, a conventional die in the form of a hexagonal cube. Let’s say we throw the die time after time. It does not even dawn on us that a relationship exists between the results of past and future throws – a sort of memory. And the reason for this does not consist of the way the die is thrown. After all, one might think that the only mechanism for influencing the outcome of a throw lies in a special art of reproducible throwing. Perhaps someone has mastered this art; however, we’re not talking about these people, but rather about those who throw the die “hit or miss”. By verifying different physical systems, the operating principle of which is similar to that of a roulette wheel, the author proves in the work at hand that a still unexplained relationship exists between the past and the future, a sort of memory, and also explains the vital details of this relationship.

A second paradoxical conclusion concerns our illusion of freedom of choice. We think that when we stop a roulette wheel that is spinning at an enormous rotational velocity, no one or nothing is controlling us, and that this is one hundred percent our choice. It turns out, however, that the trial results are not random, but are subject to specific regularities. Take, for example, data on the birth rate in the United States of America (USA). Tens of millions of people, one way or another, participate in the generation of the total figure for the rate of births per annum. And the last two digits are ostensibly not necessary at all, since they do not define the overall pattern, but rather just pinpoint the number of births to an accuracy of tens and ones. Yet it appears that these two digits are not random. How can this be?

Surprising results were obtained in instances when the sequences studied consisted of multidigit numbers: two-digit, four-digit, and five-digit. Most people assumed that the numbers occurring in different positions were totally independent. This assumption seemed reasonable – we recall the rapidly spinning roulette wheel: there are no preferences and all the outcomes are equivalent, which means there should also not be any relationship between the digits. But, again, our naïve notions have to be corrected. It follows from an analysis of the experimental data that a relationship between digits is a fact that must be considered.

In addition, the author found certain quantitative interrelationships in the frequencies of the occurrence of numbers with different absolute values. This indicates the existence of previously unknown balances of the conservation law type. The results obtained inspired the author to formulate a paradoxical hypothesis.


I would like to express my gratitude to all those who encouraged me with their support and valuable advice. I especially want to make note of the assistance of Vladimir Temchenko and the support of my wife, Natalya.

Read more:Packets (Unexplained Coincidences) – Is This a Manifestation of Order in Chaos or a Filtering Mind Game?

or return to the Сontents