Well, not to sound crass but: you’re wrong because you’re wrong. What you’re doing here is trying to apply your intuitive conceptual models — which are completely classical — to the quantum domain. You just can’t do that. If the quantum domain was all classical analogues, with Planck time units being like ticks in a computer processor as a discrete units of time, then there wouldn’t be a Newtonian limit at all. It’s nearly tautological. 

The reality is the classical domain is an *emergent* domain from the quantum domain, and your macroscopic intuitions simply do not apply. This is ultimately the biggest problem with trying to get people to conceptually understand quantum physics.

The conceptual problem goes even deeper than this, and is also showing up in your attempts to solve wave-particle duality with a classical model of understanding.

Most physicists don’t believe particles even exist in the way people intuitively imagine them. For instance, the classic Copenhagen interpretation is the worst offender here. It makes the assumption that particles are fundamental things. But then along came quantum field theory, which provides a far cleaner explanation as to what’s really going on. What we think of as “particles” are really just excitations in scalar fields, and the interactions between particles are really about interactions between those fields. This is why high energy physicists talk about the energies at which particles appear, in GeV (giga-electron volts). These are the energies at which one scalar field will interact with another field. This interaction is what we call a particle. The fact that some of these interactions are stable, and others are not, is also a well understood concept that is described by the Standard Model. It also implicates issues such as the nature of the vacuum and how the stability of hadrons emerges at all.

As an aside, the fact that the Higgs boson shows up at a GeV of 125.25 (approx), hints that the universe may be a false vacuum, and the vacuum may in fact decay at some point in the future (see: False vacuum decay).