PhD Physicist

$70–90/hrrate as listed

micro1 recruits PhD-level physicists to write graduate-difficulty problems, verify model derivations, and grade physics reasoning step by step. Work is remote and project-based, with observed rates of $70–90/hr depending on subfield and assessed depth.

Summary, eligibility guidance and screening preparation are prepared by Sidequest from the platform's posting. Check the source listing before applying.

The work

You'll be handed frontier-model outputs on physics problems — classical mechanics, E&M, statistical mechanics, quantum, condensed matter, cosmology, or whatever your subfield happens to be — and asked to say precisely where the reasoning breaks. That means checking dimensional consistency, tracking sign and factor errors through a derivation, catching plausible-sounding but wrong limiting behavior, and distinguishing a genuine physical insight from a memorized result. A second stream of work is authoring: writing original problems hard enough that current models fail them, with a fully worked solution and a defensible reference answer.

Typical tasks include:

Rubric-based grading of multi-step derivations, with written justification for each deduction
Head-to-head preference comparisons between two model responses
Authoring novel problems at qualifying-exam or research-adjacent difficulty
Flagging cases where a model reaches the right number by an invalid route

What the platform screens for

micro1's screening is AI-led: an asynchronous conversational interview plus, usually, a technical exercise. It probes whether you can actually do physics under follow-up questioning rather than describe having done it. Expect to be asked to reason aloud about an unfamiliar setup, to name your dissertation topic and defend a methodological choice in it, and to explain an error you once made and how you found it. Vague answers get re-probed; specificity is the whole game. Written English clarity matters, because your grading rationale is the deliverable, not just your score.

Logistics

Fully remote and largely asynchronous, with work claimed from queues rather than scheduled shifts. Most contributors commit 10–20 hours weekly, though project surges open more; calibration onboarding and periodic reviewer audits are standard. Engagements are contractor-based and scoped per project, so volume fluctuates — treat it as a supplement to academic or industry work rather than a fixed salary. Rates in the $70–90/hr range have been observed for PhD-level physics work and vary by task type, subfield scarcity, and quality scores; nothing is guaranteed.

What they look for

Physics
Science
Critical Thinking
Research
Teaching

Before you apply

Would you pass this screen?

Drawn from what this listing actually requires. Answered in your browser — nothing is sent to us, and we do not store your answers.

Do you hold a doctoral degree (PhD, DPhil, or equivalent) in Physics or a physics-adjacent field (Geophysics, Materials Science, Astronomy, etc.)?
PhD in Physics · required
Can you name a specific subfield (e.g., condensed matter, quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, cosmology, classical mechanics, E&M) in which you have hands-on research experience—either from dissertation work, postdoctoral research, or sustained industry/lab work—and can you articulate a methodological choice you made in that domain?
Domain depth in at least one subfield · required
Are you able to write clear, precise technical explanations in English, suitable for a grading rubric or technical evaluation that will be read by others?
Proficiency in written English · required
Are you able to commit at least 10 hours per week to asynchronous, queue-based work with variable scheduling, and do you have reliable internet and a quiet workspace for focused technical writing?
Availability for asynchronous remote work · preferred
Have you worked with physics problems at the level of doctoral research, qualifying exams, or advanced graduate coursework—i.e., problems that require derivation and judgment, not just formula application?
Familiarity with physics at research or qualifying-exam depth · required

0 of 5 answered

Included with this listing

Interview prep — 11 questions

Matched to what this platform's screening actually measures. Answer each out loud in 60–90 seconds: claim → concrete example → implication.

What it tests: Whether you can articulate the conceptual and mathematical chokepoints in your own work, and whether you're thinking like an evaluator (spotting failure modes) rather than an author (recounting results).
A strong answer: Name the derivation, state its physical context and why it matters, identify at least one non-obvious trap (a sign that flips, a limiting case that breaks, a dimensionally correct but physically nonsensical path), and explain why a model might fall into it.
Where people lose it: Reciting the derivation from start to finish without ever saying where it could go wrong, or naming only obvious errors ('the model forgot a minus sign') that any check would catch.