I'm trying to get CERN to use the LHC for a modern particle physics equivalent of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Sent it to the Council Secretariat earlier this week, haven't heard anything yet so may need the publication route.
And I've been brewing on some ideas concerning black holes for a few years.
Still, it would be great to do something like this at the LHC and some of the reasons are explained below.

I'm going to write this proposal in a more scholarly form for publication.
As it should be of great interest for the philosophy of physics. Not to mention the relevance for philosophy of science and mathematics.
That an agenda with promise of a zero result is a good test
for the integrity and methods -- any unknowns that may be hidden by
bias given the nature of building a system that primarily studies noise. Systematic errors is one thing --- systematic human errors another.
And so is the complications from adhering to working theories with
so much unknown.

There is a myriad of theories that deal with space as a variable.
Any form of direction or a experimental zero-proof would settle
many arguments revolving fundamental premises of particle physics.

By actively saying one should do PbPb for one year, and specifically:
That our orientation around the sun related to milky way is the focus of study to look for any space-time effect on any particle. This is not a narrow search in any one area of interest to physics. PbPb as the best option for the amount of tracks and chances for increasing accuracy with more particles of the same type per event. It should be of interest to look at other physics opportunities that would
fit within these run parameters.

It would requires careful consideration of velocity and distance in an angular trajectory for all types of particles over a long period of time.
The influence could be very faint and the more accurately measured to zero, the better an argument theoreticians have for venues in mathematical physics.
In addition to being a good calibration test for the experiments involved.
Of utmost interest is if force carriers may be influenced, and if it will be an expected zero result or if folds or pockets in space discussed for the very small also applies to the very large as is expected.

I've worked at CERN full time in the past, and part time until Desc. 2016.
Sort of dropped out of cognitive sciences with a desire for a philosophy specialisation in 2010.

Materialism has ceded to Idealism of late as our tool to root out the basic truth: we have come from the 19th century atomised reading of the runes of Thermodynamic phenomena (in the spirit of Democritus) to the 21st century program of applying Plato's Ideal (mathematical) forms to express those "tendencies" of material fundamental objects to decay and interact with each other as they do.

The indivisibility requirement of the fundamental atom precludes elementals from having spatial properties: being observable renders absurd the substantial elementariness of the electron in full view. Platonic (Idealistic-solid) forms rather characterise tendencies of the elements and their aggregates. Today's mathematical idealisations : the second quantised gauge, the string-membrane, knot, loop or twistor field are conceived in the spirit of Plato not of Democritus.

"[While Plato's symmetries were a far cry from conformal causality or isospin group invariance his insight was, that nature at its most fundamental (at least) is characterised] by mathematical symmetries." Heisenberg, The Debate between Plato and Democritus.

When CERN seeks to refine the (only, presumably) apparent indivisibility we observe to date by fixating on smaller scales we are just parsing out Platonic solid models. The tried and trusted way to test the truth-value of a mathematical theorem, historically has not been through validation against sensory evidence. Rather validation came from the inward experience: the determination or otherwise of the mental coherence of a train of logical propositions. That coherence, checked by the minds of other equally trained mathematicians never actively sought correspondence to the natural world for validation.

As such do we need to expand our definition of the scientific method (beyond physical sensory evidence) to embrace the mathematical method as:
" [...that involving] those knowledge-claims open to experiential validation or refutation." Wilder, Quantum Questions.

Certainty in mathematics is based on the appropriate rule for operations such as multiplication and addition. Therefore, what is the certainty in learning, as well as not conducting research, regarding methodical regulations. the basis of truth is the ontic state, the natural relationship.

Light is an emmision molecule that spreads in waves.

For those that believe in free will, consider this. Currently AI progression has advanced to the point that extremely complex simulations are possible with predictive capabilities of 100%. In the far distant future, it is not unreasonable to believe that the scope of these predictions will continue to grow, perhaps encompassing the entire universe. If AI were able to make and record accurate predictions regarding our actions, then doing so would predetermine the future of every human being in existence. If one's future course of action is predetermined, then free will has been negated.

Should we attempt to bring technology to the level of human consciousness?

Two quotes:
First on the "House that Jack built" method of explanation from Eddington, Beyond the veil of Physics:

[.."I am going to expound [Einstein's Law] in a way so complete that there is not much likelihood that anyone will understand it. Einstein's law, in its analytical form, is a statement that in empty space certain quantities called potentials obey certain lengthy differential equations. (memo [remember to] explain potential)

We might conceive a world in which the potentials at every moment and every place had quite arbitrary values. The actual world is not so unlimited, the potentials being restricted to those values which conform to Einstein's equations. What are potentials? They can be defined as quantities derived by quite simple mathematical calculations from certain fundamental quantities called intervals. (mem. explain interval)

If we know the values of the various intervals throughout the world , definite rules can be given for deriving the values of the potentials. What are the intervals? They are relations between pairs of events which can be measured with a scale or a clock or both (mem. explain scale and clock)

Instructions can be given for the correct use of scale and clock so that the interval is is given by a prescribed combination of their readings. What are scales and clocks? A scale is a graduated strip of matter which ....(mem. explain matter)

...matter may be defined as the embodiment of three related physical quantities , mass, (or energy), momentum, and stress. What are. mass, momentum and stress?.....They are rather formidable expressions containing the potentials and their first and second derivatives with respect to the co-ordinates.

What are the potentials?......"]

the second from Jeans, A Universe of Pure Thought:

["The making of models or pictures to explain mathematical formulae and the phenomena they describe is not a step towards, but a step away from reality; it is like making graven images of a spirit." ]

What then is the purpose, indeed the use of a worded explanation beyond a cycle of definitions that never quite touch the shadows as only the mathematical formula themselves perhaps do?

Anomaly, how strange, that anomalies are strange, after all, science is not normative, so there should be no such thing as anomalies, why, and why, to see anomalies you need to know some theory, eg physical, that is look at the world from the perspective of theory science, on the other hand, describes this world from the perspective of observation and experiment, and if it observes it takes the impression as it is and on the basis of these impressions confirmed experimentally describes it. As long as science is normative and excludes the existence of certain phenomena, it can not be considered as science, but rather as ideology. However, when theoretical explanation of sensory, emotional, emotional and rational sensations, striving for a coherent description of the world, I would call it science, but then there is no place for anomalies, because the impressions of some are revised by the impressions of others. I am allowing only a certain skepticism that unless you have something experimental confirmed you can not claim to be called intersubjectivity, but there are times when two people are looking at this sunset saying "I feel the same". The scientist is not the creator of the world, he does not normalize him as a politician normalizes citizens by passing laws, the scientist is not even creative, because he is observing nature and on the basis of this observation puts hypotheses, which later is verified experimentally by recreating the observation conditions in the lab space.

Are there any philosophical (re)search for a "Theory Of Everything" as there is in physics? A teory that brings all philosophical ideas into one universal theory, that describes everything? Would that even be possible in philosophy or is math, numbers and equations needed for that?

About abnormality in biological sciences.

Biological sciences, such as medicine or psychiatry, must consider an important issue that arises from a dogmatic approach to physics called reductionism. Well, it is supposed that all teachings can be described in a physical language. It is not so, the superposition in relation to which every particle of a given kind has its own individual properties directs us to a different direction. In the case of biological sciences, it is presented in such a way that every organism is a certain individual aggregate of particles. Despite the fact that particles of a given type behave in the same way in Z conditions, as it evokes the problem of estrapolation solved by me, which leads us to normality, biological organisms are individuals and react with chemical substances in a different way. For this reason, psychoactive drugs, barbiturates, psycholectics, and a typical drug for example influenza, reacts individually to each patient, this is the reasoning form AZ -> Vx, P(x)
that is for the set of patients Z, each patient reacts individually. Primum vicere of medicine, is pain relief and introduction to homeostasis, therefore, during the interview with the patient above all it is important to ask about his impression after taking the drug, and you can not eg. In psychiatric treatment, in the initial period of treatment, combine different drugs, because we are not able to specify the impact during the interview. individual medicines.