Not wanting to cast any aspersions on your claim, but what does it say? Not very much? I doesn't, for instance, say anything about the mathematics involved. Or about why or how particle behaviour is related to physical things like temperature, or momentum, or anything real.
For me is like to say that some animal have been discovered to behave sometimes as a fly sometimes as a whale. It only shows something very badly solved or unsolved thing in Physics. The solution: http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/ Yet to be proven, of course.
Er, no, "wave-particle duality" is just a statement of fact: we observe quantum particles to behave like classical particles in some respects, and behave like waves in other respects. That's not a theory; it's just a raw desrciption of what we observe. Quantum mechanics is a theory which models quantum particles as a completely new type of object, which is neither a wave nor a classical particle, but which correctly predicts the particle and wavelike behaviour we see in experiments, as well as behaviour that doesn't really fit in either category. If it's yet to be proven, how do you know it is a viable solution?
And mine is the correspondent raw comment on your raw description. To be proven mainly experimentally for otherones. Different people demands different proofs. Some experiments are proposed for example in sections 4.6 (http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section4-6_About_Feynman_experiment.htm) and 6.4 (http://www.geocities.ws/anewlightinphysics/sections/Section6-4_The_experiment_as_a_proof.htm). My work is theoretical and theoretically it shows working.