Physics Expert (Professor / Principal Investigator)

$80–160/hrrate as listed

micro1 is contracting senior physicists — Associate Professors and above, or PI-level group leaders — to adjudicate competing physics arguments and write defensible evaluations used to train frontier AI models. Work is remote and asynchronous, with observed rates of $80–160/hr depending on subfield and seniority.

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

What the work involves

You are asked to act as a referee, not a solver. A typical task presents two or more competing derivations, interpretations, or solution paths to the same physics problem, and you decide which holds up — under what assumptions, in which regimes, and where each approach breaks. Much of the value is in the meta-level reasoning: naming the approximation that quietly fails, the limit that was taken in the wrong order, the boundary condition that was never justified.

Deliverables are written and self-contained. Expect to produce evaluations that a fellow senior physicist in your subfield could read and either endorse or contest on the record — LaTeX for anything algebraic, and SymPy, Python, or Jupyter when you want to check a claim numerically or symbolically rather than assert it. Calibrated confidence matters as much as correctness: tasks explicitly reward saying "this is genuinely open in the field, and here is why" over manufacturing a verdict.

What the platform screens for

Verified seniority. micro1 looks for a physics PhD plus independent research leadership — Associate Professor or above, Chair Professor, or PI/group leader — typically evidenced by 3–5 recent representative papers with arXiv or DOI links in your named subfield.
Subfield specificity. Active research in one of: high energy physics, mathematical physics, biophysics, statistical physics, condensed matter, AMO/quantum optics, gravitation, cosmology, astrophysics, quantum information, or optical properties of materials. Generalist claims tend not to survive follow-up questioning.
Adjudication instinct. Screens probe whether you can compare two approaches on assumptions and validity regimes rather than restating textbook results.
Writing under scrutiny. Prose is assessed for whether it would survive peer review, not whether it sounds authoritative.

No prior AI or machine learning experience is required or expected; domain judgment is the deliverable.

Logistics

Fully remote contractor engagement, asynchronous, with no fixed hours. Volume fluctuates with customer demand — most contributors treat this as a supplement to an existing academic post, working in blocks of a few hours across the week. Tooling gaps (e.g., limited SymPy experience) are worth stating plainly during screening rather than overstating; they are usually workable.

What they look for

Physics Mastery
Expert Judgment in Ambiguous Cases
Meta-Level Reasoning
Research Leadership
Defensible Written Articulation

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 PhD in Physics?
PhD in Physics · required
Are you currently engaged in active research, or have you published at least one peer-reviewed paper or preprint in a physics journal or on arXiv within the past 5 years?
Current research activity · required
Are you or have you been an Associate Professor, Full Professor, Chair Professor, Principal Investigator, Group Leader, or equivalent independent research leader in academia or industry?
Academic or research leadership · required
Is your research primarily in one or more of these areas: High Energy Physics, Mathematical Physics, Biophysics, Statistical Physics, Condensed Matter, AMO/Quantum Optics, Gravitation, Cosmology, Astrophysics, Quantum Information, or Optical Properties of Materials?
Subfield expertise match · required
Are you able to use Python and LaTeX for technical work, even if you are not equally fluent in both?
Python and LaTeX proficiency · preferred
Do you have stable internet access and the ability to work remotely on a flexible contractor schedule?
Remote work access · preferred

0 of 6 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: Can you articulate the conceptual and technical substance of your own work clearly, distinguish central findings from peripheral details, and position your research within a broader research landscape—essential for adjudicating competing claims.
A strong answer: Name a specific recent paper, state the physics problem it solves or investigates, explain why that problem is open or important in the field, and briefly outline the novel approach or result. A strong answer shows ownership of the work and intellectual clarity, not just a recitation of methods.
Where people lose it: Vague or generic description of the work ('I study condensed matter physics'), failure to articulate why the question matters, or excessive jargon that obscures rather than clarifies the actual contribution. Candidates lose points when they cannot distill their own research into a coherent narrative.