The only thing that's save to say is that there is nothing like wave-particle duality in modern quantum theory. Ironically with "modern" we label a theory which was completed nearly 90 years ago. The only problem is that didactics is behind by 100 years, unfortunately particularly high-school didactics (at least here in Germany). They still teach "old quantum mechanics", including Einstein's outdated photon picture and the Bohr-Sommerfeld model of the hydrogen atom. The result are wrong (and even qualitatively wrong) pictures about weird things as "wave-particle duality" or photons as if they were little minature billard balls. The abuse of the word "photon" is the worst of all of this didactical sins, as you can see in this forum. Most of what's called "photon" in the public media and in high-school physics (and unfortunately sometimes even at university) is in fact well described by the semiclassical approximation, where the electromagnetic field is described as classical background field, interacting with quantized matter particles. This is particularly true for Einstein's famous formula on the photoelectric effect. It's somwhat ironic that Einstein got his Nobel prize for the only piece of his great work that's totally outdated today and not for that part that must be counted to the most important achievements in physics for centuries, namely general relativity and statistical physics.
Bohm mechanics is just one more of many metaphysical interpretations of the quantum-theoretical formalism. It does not predict more than minimally interpreted quantum theory but is liked by some people who think it would be nice to have the idea of particle trajectories from classical mechanics translated into the quantum world. Unfortunately they are forced to complicated non-local dynamics which confuses the subject more than it helps to understand it, and this, as stressed above, without any additional merit in the sense of the physical core of the theory, which is the quantum-theoretical formalism with Born's probabilistic interpretation of the quantum state, not more and not less.
On a fundamental level our contemporary understanding of matter and its interactions (except gravity, which is not yet understood in terms of quantum theory) is a quantized relativistic-field picture anyway. One should say, however, that also this is with quite some probability only an effective theory and not the last word, as is general relativity for the description of the gravitational field, which is purely classical.
Whether there will ever be a better more comprehensive theory, future will perhaps tell. Thinking to have the final answer to all physics questions was always wrong in the past. It's a quite well-known story about Planck's try to figure out, what to do after finishing high school. He asked a renowned physics professor about physics, and this guy told him, it would be a waste of such a brillant mind as Planck to study this subject, because everything is in principle known, and the only task is to measure things to ever higher accuracy to confirm the known laws. The "little clouds" on the horizon of theoretical physics (mostly in statistical physics at the time) will be solved simply by measuring things more accurate. So the professor adviced Planck to better study ancient Latin and Greek rather than physics. Fortunately Planck hasn't followed this advice and later opened the window to the quantum world, leading to the resolution of all the "little clouds" on the horizon of theoretical physics.
