What is difference in dual nature of light and particles?

Question

As We know that light shoaws dual nature or I would rather say that Sometime we can explain some phenomenon using wave analogy and other with particle nature(photon analogy). Phenomena like the photoelectric effect, Compton effect, etc can be understood using photon analogy and phenomena like interference, diffraction, polarization, etc can be understood using wave analogy.

A similar thing we do with particles, we say that we can associate de Broglie wave to each particle and so on. I learned quantum mechanics at the undergraduate level. What I see here is that quantum mechanics provide convenience to explain wave nature on particles. So here we see that particle nature emerges in the classical limit. So that you can solve both Kepler's planetary motion and particle in a box with the same theory without getting into duality.

Question: As we quantum mechanics fixed the dual nature of particle (like an electron), Is there a theory that fixed the dual nature of light? What does it assume light as?

At this level, I never deal with light in quantum mechanics so Maybe there is a flaw in my thinking. I saw this question which may be like what I'm asking but this doesn't clear my doubt. Answer first and second is pretty much contrary to me.

Answer 1

Let me rephrase it in one sentence. What current knowledge of science concludes about light and electron(example of particle)

Let us be clear. Nature means observation , measurements and experiments.

This double slit experiment with light, where the intensity of the laser is brought to single photon at a time shows the dual nature for photons/light. Light is emergent from a multitude of photons.

In the far left plane the photons one by one leave a footprint on the (x,y) of the frame. It looks random, but the accumulation shows the light interference through double slits for that wavelength. The accumulation is a probability distribution in finding the photon at a given (x,y)

The same is true for electrons,

The wave nature appears slowly as the electrons accumulate, the probability of finding the electrons at a given (x,y).

These two experiments show that what is waving experimentally is the probability distribution, and it is the basis of quantum mechanics where the solutions $Ψ$ of the quantum mechanical wave equations give $Ψ^*Ψ$ , the probability of interaction.

This is what observation of nature gives us up to now.

,here concludes means with which nature we can understood every phenomenon? –

This has led to very sophisticated mathematical models, based on the quantum mechanics postulates, presently quantum field theories, which can fit existing data and be amazingly predictive of new experiments.

This has led to two streams of thought:

Physicists who are theoretically inclined to be a type of platonists, i.e. that mathematics molds reality, given the mathematics , reality has to follow. These physicists believe that the fields of QED and QFT in the elementary particle standard model are the underlying reality, and nature has to follow it.

Experimentally inclined physicists believe that observations and data exist, and our up to date models describe them, but there could be a deeper level of nature not yet explored with our experiments that would show a different behavior given the right energies. That is why new experiments are being designed with higher energies and/or newer detectors. That is, not every phenomenon can be understood with current theoretical models.

I believe the last case is true.