The issue here is whether or not you are talking about something concrete or abstract and in current physics there's a lot of concepts that are being treated as if they are objects.

It's as if you were reading a scientific paper where meteors are losing materials due to rocks breathing or birds flying into certain directions due to winds howling.
Winds don't howl, rocks don't breathe.
Poetry does not help one understand the fundamentals of how physics work.
And I argue that this kind of fallacy is rampant throughout the physics community.

I (and some others similarly) suggest that there should be a systemic rules to prevent that from happening.

Here's my proposal:

1. Every sentence in the entire paper needs to be checked for fallacies and if they contain them, then they need to be crossed out with a red pen.
2. This checklist of fallacies should be universal, thus not be part of a blind peer review where the peer could uphold his or her own logic.
3. Every fundamental concrete word can be drawn with a shape.
4. Every fundamental relational abstract word can be drawn with shapes and arrows.
5. Every fundamental dynamic abstract word can be drawn with multiple frames.
6. Other fundamental words are names.
7. Words that are abstract cannot use verbs or properties that belong to concrete words, just like non-organism cannot use verbs or properties that belong to organisms.