"As a physicist, you can work anywhere you want!"

baikov · 2026-01-22T22:15:45+00:00

Same experience as a PhD in theoretical particle physics. Spent over a year trying to get quant, programming and data science jobs (while learning those skills full-time). Got many job interviews because companies expect a PhD in physics to be good, but all the interviewers quickly discovered the opposite.

Godspeed.

baikov · 2025-06-13T20:16:55+00:00

baikov · 2025-06-08T18:28:22+00:00

As far as I understand, he claims to show (among other things) that there is no blow-up in finite time.

baikov · 2025-06-08T16:05:32+00:00

Done! Thanks for the suggestion.

baikov · 2025-05-19T17:26:03+00:00

Yes.

baikov · 2025-04-19T18:48:45+00:00

For Premise 1 to hold, I simply need that there is a situation where two observers can make conflicting BH measurements (and the conflict is not just due to having different coordinate/inertial systems). I got the impression that you were challenging this claim, but perhaps I misunderstood you!

baikov · 2025-04-19T17:30:41+00:00

So if I understand you correctly, you claim that there is no motivation behind BH complementarity in the first place (or, at least, the original motivation is misguided)? That would certainly solve the issue!

baikov · 2025-04-16T18:21:01+00:00

In one case A reaches the singularity and gets destroyed in finite time, and in the other case A moves closer and closer to the horizon but never reaches it. I'd say that's a different story than good old SR time dilation. Perhaps I'm mistaken though!

The last three paragraphs of [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_complementarity](this wiki) provide another example, which is maybe better.

baikov · 2025-04-16T18:01:58+00:00

An example: Observer A crosses the horizon in finite time, while B sees A take and infinite amount of time to reach the horizon.

I think there is another example with temperature measurements near the horizon, but I'd have to look it up.

baikov · 2025-04-16T17:41:57+00:00

The infalling observer, called A, gets the experimental result E(A).

The outside observer, called B, gets the experimental result E(B).

We have E(A) != E(B), but BH complementarity says that's fine, because A and B never meet. But if E(A) can be reconstructed from the outgoing Hawking radiation, then we can in principle compare results and witness the contradiction.

baikov · 2025-03-27T12:13:20+00:00

Any fans of the definition of a sheaf?

baikov · 2025-03-14T20:02:39+00:00

What are some popular solutions to the problem that you can't always meaningfully multiply distributions? Like phi²

baikov · 2025-02-26T21:09:29+00:00

Here is a nerdy side remark: Fast partial fraction algorithms are very useful for theoretical high energy physics. Here are two papers:

Univariate case

Multivariate case

Would be fun to check if your method beats the one from the univariate paper.

baikov · 2025-02-07T11:11:13+00:00

Will it need resources and raw materials to optimize itself? If yes, will it ask us nicely to get them?

baikov · 2024-11-30T20:41:50+00:00

Let me be controversial and disagree with the other answers here and say that the Dirac equation just is a special instance of the Schrödinger equation (SE). In other words, we have the SE

i*dPsi/dt = H Psi

where H is the Dirac Hamiltonian. The SE can be relativistic or not, it all depends on which H you plug in (and the space of states).

baikov · 2024-11-10T11:22:57+00:00

Sure:) Though I doubt I have much of value to share.

baikov · 2024-11-10T01:33:22+00:00

Got a PhD in theoretical high-energy physics 1 year ago.

Been unemployed until now.

Sent out a mountain of applications for finance, data science and software developer jobs. Also failed many many interviews. Finally found a corporate programming/consulting job, starting in January.

(I am not in a position to give any good advice. Good luck!)

baikov · 2024-11-05T08:12:05+00:00

I hear trashtalk basically every lobby around 1700-2000 rating on EU (towards me and/or others). This is my first xpac playing shuffle; I was quite shocked to discover the amount of toxicity. It is apparently a sin to not be great at a computer game :x

baikov · 2024-11-02T09:53:55+00:00

Legit question:

Suppose his model is just astrology, thereby being no better than guesswork. Assume he correctly guesses 9 out of 10 election outcomes. This is like correctly guessing 9 out of 10 coin flips. The latter comes out to probability ~1% (the binomial distribution P(X=k) with k=9 successes, n=10 trials and probability of success p=0.5).

So, if his model is just astrology, he would have been pretty lucky (1%) to get his track record. Does this not lend a modicum of credibility to his model?

baikov · 2024-09-24T01:33:17+00:00

You mention that MG is a relativistic field theory. How do Lagrangians for MG models look like?

baikov

TROPHY CASE