Pg 4 "However, it becomes verbal/psychological declaration only, since the QM allows presenting/describing one kind of object, and not two types together ("wave" and "particle") as it is in reality. I.e. the QM accepts two kinds of objects, existing together at the same time, and it allows describing one of them only (?)"
I believe "wave" and "particle" should first be defined separately, then approach how the two definitions can be reconciled in a single "wave object" or "wave packet", which you use. A "wave" is describing a cyclic event, and it makes no difference what type of medium supports the wave, solid, fluid, gas or vacuum. A vacuum is not a benign medium, it has permittivity and permeability. A wave exists in some kind of "substance" that can support wave action. If there is some type of object associated with a wave, then it makes a difference whether the object moves in the axis of the waves propagation direction.
The term "particle" means different things to different scientific disciplines. You use the term "elementary particle" (elm) and state it is a "standing wave packet". A "standing wave" is by definition stationary, and it is produced by two waves moving in the opposite direction, a superposition phenomenon. I think it would have been better if you had stated "wave packet" and eliminate "standing".
Einstein started digging himself into a hole when he was separating electromagnetic (EM) fields, which included electric charges and magnetic poles, from "matter". Einstein's later position, as you pointed out on page 3, " W=mc2 seems unnatural". Einstein was in one of several generations where the transverse EM (TEM) field was the only field characteristic they were aware of. Once you recognize that propagating EM fields can have field structures very different from TEM field structures, it is necessary to readjust your thinking as to what constitutes "matter".
QEF, Pg 7 "Quant of Electromagnetic Field (QEF) is a unique base of substance" I will agree that EM fields produce unique characteristics, but I would not call them a "substance." It depends upon the EM field structure as to what you get. The force of gravity can be produced by a very simple EM field structure, but that field is the result of some type of structure that can produce it. The EM field propagates from this "structure" and we perceive this as an object that has mass.
The papers below, published in 2004, identified an EM link to gravity.
Newton's Quantum Coupling Constant
Several years later I identified the EM field structure that produces an attractant only force; I reference the above papers in my paper.
Helical Electromagnetic Gravity
The material in topic 1416 is presenting particles as localized field configurations, and they are very complex configurations, much more complex than the simple helical EM field that produces gravity.