As with astronomy, the study of physics is so imbedded with cycles that they almost pass by without being noticed. The concept of frequency is quite fundamental, being based only on time. According to one physics nobel prize winner, mass, energy and frequency are all equivalent (related by Einstein's and Lorentz's famous equations) and that perhaps the most fundamental of these is frequency.
In particle physics, following the work of de Broglie each particle is considered to also be a wave and to have a particular oscillation present, known as the Compton frequency of that particle. Although most often used of particles, it has been shown by passing them through two slits that larger things such as atoms also have this property.
In simpler physics, the periodicity of a simple harmonic oscillator (SHO) serves as the model for all vibrations, being a perfect sine wave of displacement over time. For all students of cycles this shows quite clearly that a cycle can be produced when a displacement from a stable state happens and there is a restoring force that is proportional to the displacement from that stable state.
Interestingly, the SHO has a sine wave over time for each of the displacement, the velocity and the acceleration. The different phases of these properties when thought about can explain the reason for the existence of the oscillations or cycles. Such phases differences are also found in other disciplines.
For those that prefer their physics to be realistic, such as Einstein, then the supposed weirdness of quantum physics is not accepted and simpler explanations are sought to explain the observations. Because we cannot directly see what is happening in the particle an atomic realms, it is of great assistance to have examples from other fields of study. In this regard, the discoveries in cymatics and of oscillons are very suggestive for the possibility of realistic models for a wave structure of matter.
For such proposals to be widely accepted it is necessary for those promoting them to show that there is in fact no quantum weirdness at all. The central core of this weirdness is the experiments associated with Bell's inequality and known as EPR or Aspect experiemnts. It has been suggested by a number of people proficient in statistics that the whole thing is just misunderstanding of statistical analysis.
David Elm is someone who has put this statistical view. Similarly Caroline Thompson has argued in various journals that realistic models can get the same results, and it seems that no-one has discredited her ideas.