Question: Through the work of Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie, and many others, current scientific theory holds that "all" particles also have what kind of nature?
About the article "Subatomic particle", section "Other properties".

Candidate passages:
The idea of duality originated in a debate over the nature of light and matter that dates back to the 17th century, when Christiaan Huygens and Isaac Newton proposed competing theories of light: light was thought either to consist of waves (Huygens) or of particles (Newton).
Through the work of Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie, Arthur Compton, Niels Bohr, and many others, current scientific theory holds that "all" particles "also" have a wave nature (and vice versa).
This phenomenon has been verified not only for elementary particles, but also for compound particles like atoms and even molecules.
For macroscopic particles, because of their extremely short wavelengths, wave properties usually cannot be detected. 
Through the work of Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie, and many others, current scientific theory holds that "all" particles also have a wave nature.
This has been verified not only for elementary particles but also for compound particles like atoms and even molecules.
In fact, according to traditional formulations of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, wave–particle duality applies to all objects, even macroscopic ones; although wave properties of macroscopic objects cannot be detected due to their small wavelengths.
Interactions between particles have been scrutinized for many centuries, and a few simple laws underpin how particles behave in collisions and interactions.
The most fundamental of these are the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of momentum, which let us make calculations of particle interactions on scales of magnitude that range from stars to quarks.
These are the prerequisite basics of Newtonian mechanics, a series of statements and equations in "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica", originally published in 1687.
In 1923 Louis de Broglie addressed the question of whether all particles can have both a wave and a particle nature similar to the photon.
Photons differ from many other particles in that they are massless and travel at the speed of light.
Specifically de Broglie asked the question of whether a particle that has both a wave and a particle associated with it is consistent with Einstein's two great 1905 contributions, the special theory of relativity and the quantization of energy and momentum.
The answer turned out to be positive.
The wave and particle nature of electrons was experimentally observed in 1927, two years after the discovery of the Schrödinger equation. 
Dr. de Broglie presented his pilot wave theory at the 1927 Solvay Conference, after close collaboration with Schrödinger, who developed his wave equation for de Broglie's theory.
At the end of the presentation, Wolfgang Pauli pointed out that it was not compatible with a semi-classical technique Fermi had previously adopted in the case of inelastic scattering.
Contrary to a popular legend, de Broglie actually gave the correct rebuttal that the particular technique could not be generalized for Pauli's purpose, although the audience might have been lost in the technical details and de Broglie's mild mannerism left the impression that Pauli's objection was valid.
He was eventually persuaded to abandon this theory nonetheless in 1932 due to both the Copenhagen school's more successful P.R.
efforts and his own inability to understand quantum decoherence.
Also in 1932, John von Neumann published a paper, that was widely (and erroneously) believed to prove that all hidden-variable theories are impossible.
This sealed the fate of de Broglie's theory for the next two decades.
De Broglie's theory already applies to multiple spin-less particles, but lacks an adequate theory of measurement as no one understood quantum decoherence at the time.
An analysis of de Broglie's presentation is given in Bacciagaluppi et al.
Around this time Erwin Madelung also developed a hydrodynamic version of Schrödinger's equation which is incorrectly considered as a basis for the density current derivation of the de Broglie–Bohm theory.
The Madelung equations, being quantum Euler equations (fluid dynamics), differ philosophically from the de Broglie–Bohm mechanics and are the basis of the hydrodynamic interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Peter R. Holland has pointed out that, earlier in 1927, Einstein had actually submitted a preprint with a similar proposal but, not convinced, had withdrawn it before publication.
According to Holland, failure to appreciate key points of the de Broglie–Bohm theory has led to confusion, the key point being "that the trajectories of a many-body quantum system are correlated not because the particles exert a direct force on one another ("à la" Coulomb) but because all are acted upon by an entity – mathematically described by the wavefunction or functions of it – that lies beyond them."
This entity is the quantum potential.
After publishing a popular textbook on Quantum Mechanics which adhered entirely to the Copenhagen orthodoxy, Bohm was persuaded by Einstein to take a critical look at von Neumann's theorem.
The result was 'A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of "Hidden Variables" I and II' 1952.
It was an independent origination of the pilot wave theory, and extended it to incorporate a consistent theory of measurement, and to address a criticism of Pauli that de Broglie did not properly respond to; it is taken to be deterministic (though Bohm hinted in the original papers that there should be disturbances to this, in the way Brownian motion disturbs Newtonian mechanics).
This stage is known as the "de Broglie–Bohm Theory" in Bell's work 1987 and is the basis for 'The Quantum Theory of Motion' 1993.
This stage applies to multiple particles, and is deterministic.
The de Broglie–Bohm theory is an example of a hidden variables theory.
Bohm originally hoped that hidden variables could provide a local, causal, objective description that would resolve or eliminate many of the paradoxes of quantum mechanics, such as Schrödinger's cat, the measurement problem and the collapse of the wavefunction.
However, Bell's theorem complicates this hope, as it demonstrates that there can be no local hidden variable theory that is compatible with the predictions of quantum mechanics.
The Bohmian interpretation is causal but not local.
Bohm's paper was largely ignored or panned by other physicists.
Albert Einstein did not consider it a satisfactory answer to the quantum nonlocality question, calling it "too cheap"., and Werner Heisenberg considered it a "superfluous 'ideological superstructure' ".
Wolfgang Pauli, who had been unconvinced by de Broglie in 1927, conceded to Bohm as follows:I just received your long letter of 20th November, and I also have studied more thoroughly the details of your paper.
I do not see any longer the possibility of any logical contradiction as long as your results agree completely with those of the usual wave mechanics and as long as no means is given to measure the values of your hidden parameters both in the measuring apparatus and in the observe system.
As far as the whole matter stands now, your ‘extra wave-mechanical predictions’ are still a check, which cannot be cashed.
When Bohm's theory was presented at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, many of the objections were ad hominem, focusing on Bohm's sympathy with communists as exemplified by his refusal to give testimony to the House Un-American Activities Committee.
Eventually John Bell began to defend the theory.
In "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics" 1987, several of the papers refer to hidden variables theories (which include Bohm's). 
According to the philosophical point of view of Einstein, Dirac, Bell, Polyakov, ’t Hooft, Laughlin, de Broglie, Maxwell, Newton and other theorists, there might be a medium with physical properties filling 'empty' space, an Aether, enabling the observed physical processes.
Albert Einstein in 1894 or 1895: ”The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."
Albert Einstein in 1920: ”We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether.
According to the general theory of relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.
But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time.
The idea of motion may not be applied to it.” Paul Dirac wrote in 1951: "Physical knowledge has advanced much since 1905, notably by the arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation the scientific plausibility of Aether has again changed.
If one examines the question in the light of present-day knowledge, one finds that the Aether is no longer ruled out by relativity, and good reasons can now be advanced for postulating an Aether.
.
.
.
.
.
.
We have now the velocity at all points of space-time, playing a fundamental part in electrodynamics.
It is natural to regard it as the velocity of some real physical thing.
Thus with the new theory of electrodynamics filled with virtual particles we are rather forced to have an Aether".
It was Richard Feynman who first suggested that the basic partial-differential equations of theoretical physics might be actually describing macroscopic motion of some infinitesimal entities he called X-ons.
He suggested X-ons as the unifying concept for description of physical universe, though he did not specify their properties.
John Bell in 1986, interviewed by Paul Davies in "The Ghost in the Atom" has suggested that an Aether theory might help resolve the EPR paradox by allowing a reference frame in which signals go faster than light.
He suggests Lorentz contraction is perfectly coherent, not inconsistent with relativity, and could produce an aether theory perfectly consistent with the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Bell suggests the aether was wrongly rejected on purely philosophical grounds: "what is unobservable does not exist" [p. 49].
Einstein found the non-aether theory simpler and more elegant, but Bell suggests that doesn't rule it out.
Besides the arguments based on his interpretation of quantum mechanics, Bell also suggests resurrecting the aether because it is a useful pedagogical device.
That is, many problems are solved more easily by imagining the existence of an aether.
As noted by Alexander Markovich Polyakov in 1987: “Elementary particles existing in nature resemble very much excitations of some complicated medium (Aether).
We do not know the detailed structure of the Aether but we have learned a lot about effective Lagrangians for its low energy excitations.
It is as if we knew nothing about the molecular structure of some liquid but did know the Navier-Stokes equation and could thus predict many exciting things.
Clearly, there are lots of different possibilities at the molecular level leading to the same low energy picture.”According to Albert Einstein, “God does not play dice with the Universe”.
And those agreeing with him are looking for a classical, deterministic aether theory that would imply quantum-mechanical predictions as a statistical approximation, a hidden variable theory.
In particular, Gerard 't Hooft conjectured that: “We should not forget that quantum mechanics does not really describe what kind of dynamical phenomena are actually going on, but rather gives us probabilistic results.
To me, it seems extremely plausible that any reasonable theory for the dynamics at the Planck scale would lead to processes that are so complicated to describe, that one should expect apparently stochastic fluctuations in any approximation theory describing the effects of all of this at much larger scales.
It seems quite reasonable first to try a classical, deterministic theory for the Planck domain.
One might speculate then that what we call quantum mechanics today, may be nothing else than an ingenious technique to handle this dynamics statistically.” In their paper Blasone, Jizba and Kleinert: “have attempted to substantiate the recent proposal of G. ’t Hooft in which quantum theory is viewed as not a complete field theory, but is in fact an emergent phenomenon arising from a deeper level of dynamics.
The underlying dynamics are taken to be classical mechanics with singular Lagrangians supplied with an appropriate information loss condition.
With plausible assumptions about the actual nature of the constraint dynamics, quantum theory is shown to emerge when the classical Dirac-Bergmann algorithm for constrained dynamics is applied to the classical path integral .
.
.
Louis de Broglie, "If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature would seem desirable.
It certainly is of quite complex character.
It could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to relativity theory.
"James Clerk Maxwell, "In several parts of this treatise an attempt has been made to explain electromagnetic phenomena by means of mechanical action transmitted from one body to another by means of a medium occupying the space between them.
The undulatory theory of light also assumes the existence of a medium.
We have now to show that the properties of the electromagnetic medium are identical with those of the luminiferous medium.
Isaac Newton, "Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines?
... Is not this medium much rarer within the dense bodies of the Sun, stars, planets and comets, than in the empty celestial space between them?
And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the bodies; every body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the medium towards the rarer?"