Effects of the Cornell-type potential on a position-dependent mass system in Kaluza-Klein theory

E. V. B. Leite; H. Belich; R. L. L. Vit\'oria

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 87 references

Effects of the Cornell-type potential on a position-dependent mass system in Kaluza-Klein theory

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read In a Kaluza-Klein background, a Cornell-type potential forces the magnetic field of a position-dependent-mass scalar particle to take discrete, quantum-number-dependent values for bound states.

desk verdict A workmanlike exact-solvability calculation with a genuinely new potential-background combination, but the central formulas for the Cornell-type case are inconsistent because a²/ρ² is dropped in the general radial equation and silently reinstated in the Coulomb limit. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05076 v1 pith:5SJAVZT3 submitted 2019-08-14 hep-th

E. V. B. Leite , H. Belich , R. L. L. Vitória This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th PACS 03.65.Vf11.30.Qc11.30.Cp

keywords Kaluza-Kleintheoryposition-dependentmassCornell-typepotentialbiconfluentHeunequationLandauquantizationAharonov-Bohmeffectforboundstatesuniformmagneticfieldquantumflux

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper studies a massive scalar particle whose mass depends on position, placed in a five-dimensional Kaluza-Klein background that supplies a uniform magnetic field and a quantum flux. The position-dependent mass is realized by a Cornell-type central potential, the sum of a Coulomb term $a/\rho$ and a linear term $b\rho$, inserted into the Klein-Gordon equation. The paper claims that bound states exist only when the magnetic field takes discrete values selected by the quantum numbers $\{l,n\}$ and the potential parameters $a,b$; for the lowest radial mode $n=1$, the allowed fields are the real root of a cubic equation and the energies are then fixed by a closed expression. In the pure-Coulomb and pure-linear limits the allowed fields and energies become explicit formulas, and in all cases the quantum flux shifts the angular momentum, producing an Aharonov-Bohm-type periodicity. A reader should care because this predicts a concrete quantum effect, magnetic field quantization tied to the quantum numbers, and extends quark-confining Cornell potentials to a higher-dimensional relativistic setting.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the biconfluent Heun equation, the second-order linear ODE obtained after separating $t,z,w,\phi$ and writing the radial function as $u(\varrho)=\varrho^{|\iota|}e^{-\frac{1}{2}\varrho(\varrho+\delta)}H(\varrho)$, where $\varrho=\sqrt{\Omega}\rho$ and $\iota=l-q\Phi/2\pi$. The equation has a regular singular point at the origin and an irregular singular point at infinity, and the paper handles it with a power-series ansatz $H(\varrho)=\sum_j c_j\varrho^j$, deriving the recurrence (15). Bound states are obtained by truncating the series to a polynomial through the two conditions $c_{n+1}=0$ and $\theta=2n$; choosing the magnetic field as the adjustable parameter turns these conditions into algebraic equations for the allowed field. This machinery does the work of converting a differential-equation problem into a finite algebraic quantization condition.

What would settle it

Numerically solve the full radial equation, without the truncation approximation, for the $n=1$ state at fixed $a,b,l,\Phi$, and check whether the paper's predicted $B_0$ values from Eq. (19) yield normalizable polynomial solutions; any mismatch indicates the dropped $a^2$ term matters.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a quantization mechanism: solving the Klein-Gordon equation with mass $m+a/\rho+b\rho$ in the Kaluza-Klein metric with gauge field $A_\phi = B_0\rho^2/(2K)+\Phi/(2\pi K)$, the radial equation becomes a biconfluent Heun equation. Bound states require the Heun series to terminate, which imposes $c_{n+1}=0$ and $\theta=2n$. For the radial mode $n=1$ the first condition gives the cubic (19) for $\Omega_{l,1}$, related to the allowed magnetic field by $B_{l,1}^{0}=(2/q)\sqrt{\Omega_{l,1}-b^{2}}$, and the second gives the energy $E_{k,l,1}$ in Eq. (21). The paper therefore claims that in this background the magnetic field is not free but must sit on specific values fixed by the quantum numbers and by $a$ and $b$, that the Cornell potential breaks Landau-level degeneracy, and that the lowest bound state is $n=1$ rather than $n=0$; the $n=0$ case would force zero rest mass.

Load-bearing premise

The results rest on dropping the $a^2/\rho^2$ term from the squared mass $(m+a/\rho+b\rho)^2$ when forming the radial equation; if that term is retained, the effective angular momentum becomes $\sqrt{(l-q\Phi/2\pi)^2+a^2}$ and the cubic giving allowed magnetic fields changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For the radial mode $n=1$, the allowed magnetic field is fixed by the real root of the cubic (19); a given quantum number $l$ and potential strengths $a,b$ select specific field values, so the field cannot vary continuously.
The energy spectrum is not a single closed formula: each radial mode $n$ must be treated separately through its own truncation conditions, with energy $E_{k,l,n}$ following once $\Omega_{l,n}$ is known.
The Cornell potential breaks the degeneracy of the relativistic Landau levels, and the lowest bound state shifts from $n=0$ to $n=1$; the $n=0$ level would require a vanishing rest mass.
The quantum flux $\Phi$ enters only through the effective angular momentum $l-q\Phi/2\pi$, giving the Aharonov-Bohm effect for bound states: energy and allowed fields are periodic in $\Phi$ with period $2\pi\nu/q$.
In the limits $a\to 0$ or $b\to 0$, the results reduce to pure-linear or pure-Coulomb cases with explicit formulas for the allowed field and energy, and for $a=b=0$ the ordinary relativistic Landau quantization in Kaluza-Klein theory is recovered with unrestricted field values.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial inference: the truncation strategy generalizes mode by mode: for radial mode $n$, the condition $c_{n+1}=0$ gives a polynomial equation of higher degree in $\Omega$, so the full spectrum could be generated algorithmically, a route the paper does not take.
Editorial inference: the flux periodicity of the allowed fields and energies suggests a concrete experimental signature in persistent-current measurements on a ring: the bound-state energy should oscillate with the enclosed flux with the stated period, which would test the Kaluza-Klein origin of the effect.
Editorial inference: because the magnetic-field quantization disappears in the $a=b=0$ limit, the effect is entirely created by the Cornell potential; tuning the potential strengths from zero upward should continuously unlock the discrete field values, a prediction that could be checked in analogue condensed-matter systems.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The punchline: this is a standard biconfluent-Heun truncation applied to a new combination—a position-dependent-mass scalar field with a Cornell-type potential in a Kaluza-Klein background with magnetic field and flux. Up to the radial equation, the algebra is careful and internally consistent. The authors correctly identify that the lowest radial mode is n=1 rather than n=0, a nontrivial qualitative consequence of the potential. The particular limits (pure Coulomb, pure linear) are worked out in detail, and the paper honestly notes where its results reduce to earlier work.

The soft spot is real and load-bearing. Expanding the squared mass term in Eq. (4) gives an extra a²/ρ² contribution, so the exact coefficient of u/ρ² in Eq. (8) is (l−qΦ/2π)² + a², not ι² = (l−qΦ/2π)² as printed in Eq. (9). The paper never states that a²/ρ² is being neglected, and no smallness condition on a is imposed. The inconsistency is exposed by the Coulomb limit: Eq. (23) and (24) use √((l−qΦ/2π)² + a²) as the effective angular momentum, which is precisely the value you get if the a² term is kept. Setting b→0 in Eq. (19) with the printed ι² gives a different ω_{l,1} from Eq. (23). So as printed, Eqs. (19) and (21) are not derived from the same potential as Eqs. (23)–(25). This is not a minor typo; it changes the central allowed-magnetic-field and energy formulas.

The fix is straightforward: either consistently carry |ι| = √((l−qΦ/2π)² + a²) through the general derivation, or explicitly state that a²/ρ² is dropped (with a justifying condition) and correct the Coulomb-limit formulas accordingly. No numerical checks or code are provided, which is typical for this analytic literature but leaves the “quantum effect” as a mathematical artifact. Self-citation is heavy but not inappropriate given the group’s prior work.

Who is this for? People working on exact solutions of wave equations in Kaluza-Klein backgrounds and position-dependent-mass systems. It does not reorganize a field and has no experimental consequence, but it is a concrete, checkable calculation. Because the error is real and fixable, the paper deserves a serious referee rather than a desk reject. Send it to review, but the referee should insist on a consistent treatment of the a² term before publication.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a scalar particle with position-dependent mass in a five-dimensional Kaluza-Klein background with a uniform magnetic field and a quantum flux. The authors insert a Cornell-type potential S(ρ)=a/ρ+bρ into the squared mass term, reduce the Klein-Gordon equation to a radial equation, and recast the solution in terms of a biconfluent Heun function. Imposing polynomial truncation for the radial mode n=1 yields a cubic equation for a frequency parameter Ω (hence for the magnetic field) and an expression for the relativistic energy. Coulomb-only and linear-only limits are then derived. The central claim is that bound states exist only for discrete values of the magnetic field that depend on the quantum numbers {l,n} and on the potential parameters a,b.

Significance. If corrected, the paper would provide a useful worked example of exact solvability in a Kaluza-Klein background with a combined Coulomb-plus-linear potential, and the observation that the background magnetic field is fixed by the polynomial-truncation condition is a nontrivial feature of the model. The derivation is self-contained, uses standard Heun-function truncation, and does not fit any free parameter to data; these are strengths. However, the central formulas are not internally self-consistent as printed, and the claimed results cannot be used without revision.

major comments (2)

[Section II.A, Eqs. (8)-(9) and Section II.B, Eqs. (23)-(24)] The treatment of the a^2/ρ^2 term is inconsistent. Expanding [m+a/ρ+bρ]^2 in Eq. (4) gives a^2/ρ^2 in addition to the terms retained in Eq. (8), so the exact coefficient of u/ρ^2 is (l−qΦ/2π)^2+a^2, not ι^2=(l−qΦ/2π)^2 as defined in Eq. (9). No approximation dropping a^2/ρ^2 is stated in Section II.A. The inconsistency is exposed by the Coulomb limit: Eqs. (23)-(24) use the effective angular momentum √((l−qΦ/2π)^2+a^2), which is exactly the value one obtains if the a^2/ρ^2 term is kept. Taking b→0 in Eq. (19) with the printed ι^2, and using the relation Ω=mω/2 that follows from Eq. (9) for b=0, gives ω_{l,1}=4a^2m/(1+2|l−qΦ/2π|), not the value in Eq. (23). Thus Eqs. (19) and (21) are not derived from the same potential as Eqs. (23)-(25). The authors must either retain a^2/ρ^2 throughout, replacing every |ι| by √((l−qΦ/2π)^2+a^2), which changes the cubic (19) and the energy (21), or they must explicitly state that a^2/ρ^2 is neglected and modify the Coulomb-limit formulas accordingly.
[Eq. (20)] The inversion from Ω to ω and B0 is misprinted. Since Ω^2=b^2+m^2ω^2/4 by Eq. (9), the correct relation is ω=(2/m)√(Ω^2−b^2) and B0=(2/q)√(Ω^2−b^2), not (2/m)√(Ω−b^2) as printed. With the printed expression, the right-hand side has the wrong algebraic form and inconsistent dimensions for Ω and b. This is load-bearing because Eqs. (23), (27), and (29) all convert roots of Eq. (19) into magnetic-field values through this relation; for example, the b→0 limit of Eq. (19) with the printed form would not reproduce Eq. (23), whereas the corrected form does reproduce the structure of Eq. (23) once the effective angular momentum is handled consistently.

minor comments (4)

[Section II.A after Eq. (19)] The paper does not specify the parameter domain for which the real root of Eq. (19) satisfies Ω^2>b^2, so the magnetic field in Eq. (20) is real. For arbitrary a,b,m the allowed-values claim may fail; the authors should state the admissible parameter region and, if useful, illustrate it.
[Section II.A, discussion after Eq. (21)] The claim that the n=0 case would require a zero rest mass is not generally correct: c1=0 for m≠0 can also be satisfied when 2a + b(2|ι|+1)/Ω = 0. The statement should be qualified to positive a,b (which is presumably intended) or replaced by a direct argument.
[Eq. (29)] Eq. (29) contains nested radicals and exponent typography that make verification difficult; please re-typeset it and check all parentheses and exponents.
[General presentation] The authors should state the dimensions (or the natural-unit conventions) of the parameters a and b in Eq. (6), since the consistency of the b→0 and a→0 limits depends on how these parameters are scaled.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central results are derived from the stated Heun-series truncation conditions, and the paper's self-citations are methodological rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Starting from the Kaluza-Klein line element (2), it writes the Klein-Gordon equation (4) with position-dependent mass m+a/rho+b*rho, reduces it to the radial equation (8), and obtains bound states by requiring the biconfluent Heun series to terminate through conditions c_{n+1}=0 and theta=2n in Eq. (18). The resulting cubic (19) for the magnetic-field parameter and the energy expression (21) are algebraic consequences of these truncation conditions, not of any fitted data or externally imported result. Although the paper cites several prior works by the same authors for the metric ansatz, the Heun-equation method, and the truncation conditions (e.g., Refs. [36,41,53,61]), the present paper actually performs the reduction and displays the equations; those citations are methodological and do not carry the logical weight of the final claim. The only substantive issue is a consistency concern, not a circularity: expanding [m+a/rho+b*rho]^2 in Eq. (4) produces an a^2/rho^2 term that is absent from the printed radial equation (8), whose iota^2 is defined as (l-q*Phi/2*pi)^2 in Eq. (9); yet the Coulomb-type formulas in Eqs. (23)-(25) effectively use sqrt((l-q*Phi/2*pi)^2+a^2) as the effective angular momentum. Setting b->0 in Eq. (19) with the printed iota^2 does not algebraically reproduce Eq. (23). This is an internal-consistency/correctness issue, not a reduction of a prediction to its inputs, so it does not raise the circularity score. The score of 2 reflects the presence of several minor, non-load-bearing self-citations; no circular step is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on standard biconfluent Heun polynomial theory and on modeling choices: the specific 5D metric, the additive insertion of the Cornell potential into the mass, and the decision to quantize the magnetic field to satisfy the truncation. The potential strengths a and b are free inputs. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

a
Strength of the Coulomb-type term a/ρ in the Cornell potential; chosen by hand, not derived or fitted to data.
b
Strength of the linear term bρ in the Cornell potential; chosen by hand, not derived or fitted to data.

assumptions (4)

standard math The theory of the biconfluent Heun equation, including the polynomial truncation conditions cn+1=0 and θ=2n, is used to construct bound states.
Invoked in Eqs. (13)-(18) to obtain finite polynomial solutions.
domain assumption The 5D Kaluza-Klein metric (2) with gauge field A_ϕ = B0ρ^2/(2K) + Φ/(2πK) is the correct background for a uniform magnetic field and quantum flux.
This metric is introduced at the start and governs the Klein-Gordon equation in Eq. (5).
domain assumption The mass of the scalar field is modified additively as m + S(ρ) with the Cornell potential S(ρ)=a/ρ+bρ.
Stated in the introduction and used in Eq. (4) and thereafter.
ad hoc to paper The magnetic field is chosen as the parameter to satisfy the polynomial truncation condition, rather than the energy.
The paper explicitly states this choice before Eq. (19); it is a mathematical convenience that produces the quantized magnetic field values.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effects of the Cornell-type potential on a position-dependent mass system in Kaluza-Klein theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5SJAVZT3

@misc{pith2026190805076,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effects of the Cornell-type potential on a position-dependent mass system in Kaluza-Klein theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5SJAVZT3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05076}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper, we have investigated a scalar particle with position-dependent mass subject to a uniform magnetic field and a quantum flux, both coming from the background which is governed by the Kaluza-Klein theory. By modifying the mass term of the scalar particle, we insert the Cornell-type potential. In the search for solutions of bound states we determine the relativistic energy profile of the system in this background of extra dimension. Particular cases of this system are analyzed and a quantum effect can be observed: the dependence of the magnetic field on the quantum numbers of the solutions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

[1]

Eisberg, R

R. Eisberg, R. Resnick, Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei and Par ticles, 2rd edn. (John Wiley, New York, 1985)

1985
[2]

L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics: The Nonrelativistic Theory , 3rd edn. (Pergamon, Oxford, 1977)

1977
[3]

A. D. Alhaidari, Phys. Rev. A 66, 042116 (2002)

2002
[4]

A. D. Alhaidari, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 42, 2999 (2003)

2003
[5]

A. D. Alhaidari, Phys. Lett. A 322, 72 (2004)

2004
[6]

Chen, Phys

G. Chen, Phys. Lett. A 329, 22 (2004)

2004
[7]

S. Dong, J. J. Pe˜ na, C. Pacheco-Garc´a, J. Gars ´ ıa-Ravelo,Mod. Phys. Lett. A 22, 1039 (2007)

work page 2007
[8]

Von Roos, Phys

O. Von Roos, Phys. Rev. B 27, 7547 (1983)

work page 1983

Show all 87 references

[9]

Von Roos, H

O. Von Roos, H. Mavromatis, Phys. Rev. B 31, 2294 (1985)

1985
[10]

R. A. Morrow, Phys. Rev. B 35, 8074 (1987)

1987
[11]

Trzeciakowski, Phys

W. Trzeciakowski, Phys. Rev. B 38, 4322 (1988)

1988
[12]

Galbraith, G

I. Galbraith, G. Duggan, Phys. Rev. B 38, 10057 (1988)

1988
[13]

Young, Phys

K. Young, Phys. Rev. B 39, 13434 (1989)

1989
[14]

G. T. Einevoll, P. C. Hemmer, J. Thomsen, Phys. Rev. B 42, 3485 (1990)

1990
[15]

J. M. L´ evy Leblond, Phys. Rev. A 52, 1845 (1995)

1995
[16]

G¨ onul, O

B. G¨ onul, O. ¨Ozer, B. G¨ on¨ ul, F.¨Uzg¨ un, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 17, 2453 (2002)

2002
[17]

G¨ on¨ ul, B

B. G¨ on¨ ul, B. G¨ on¨ ul, D. Tutcu and O.¨Ozer, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 17, 2057 (2002)

2002
[18]

A. R. Plastino, M. Casas, A. Plastino, Phys. Lett. A 281, 297 (2001)

2001
[19]

T. Gora, F. Williams, Phys. Rev. 177, 1179 (1969)

1969
[20]

Bastard, Wave Mechanics Applied to Semiconductor Heterostructure (Les Editions de Physique, France, 1988)

G. Bastard, Wave Mechanics Applied to Semiconductor Heterostructure (Les Editions de Physique, France, 1988)

1988
[21]

Harrison, Quantum Wells, Wires and Dots: Theoretical and Computation al Physics , 2rd edn

P. Harrison, Quantum Wells, Wires and Dots: Theoretical and Computation al Physics , 2rd edn. (John Wiley, UK, 2005)

2005
[22]

J. Yu, S. H. Dong, G. H. Sun, Phys. Lett. A 322, 290 (2004)

2004
[23]

J. Yu, S. H. Dong, Phys. Lett. A 325, 194 (2004)

2004
[24]

Lozada-Cassou, S

M. Lozada-Cassou, S. H. Dong, J. Yu, Phys. Lett. A 331, 45 (2004)

2004
[25]

Arias de Saavedra, J

F. Arias de Saavedra, J. Boronat, A. Polls, A. Fabrocini, Phys. Rev. B 50, 4248 (1994) 11

1994
[26]

Barranco, M

M. Barranco, M. Pi, S. M. Gatica, E. S. Hernandez, J. Navarro , Phys. Rev. B 56, 8997 (1997)

1997
[27]

Aguiar, I

V. Aguiar, I. Guedes, Rev. Bras. Ens. Fs. 35, 1 (2013)

2013
[28]

A. P. Lima, D. X. Macedo, I. Guedes, Rev. Bras. Ens. Fs. 36, 2305 (2014)

2014
[29]

J. P. G. Nascimento, I. Guedes, Rev. Bras. Ens. Fs. 36, 4308 (2014)

2014
[30]

Greiner, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics: Wave Equations , 3rd edition (Springer, Berlin, 2000)

W. Greiner, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics: Wave Equations , 3rd edition (Springer, Berlin, 2000)

2000
[31]

H. G. Dosch, J. H. D. Jensen, and V. F. M¨ uller, Phys. Norwegic a 5, 2 (1971)

1971
[32]

G. Soﬀ, B. M¨ uller, J. Rafelski, W. Greiner, Z. Naturforsch 28a, 1389 (1973)

1973
[33]

M. K. Bahar, F. Yasuk, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2013, 814985 (2013)

2013
[34]

S. M. Ikhdair, M. Hamzavi, Chin. Phys. B 21, 110302 (2012)

2012
[35]

Motavalli, A

H. Motavalli, A. R. Akbarieh, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 25, 2523 (2010)

2010
[36]

E. R. Figueiredo Medeiros, E. R. Bezerra de Mello, Eur. Phys. J. C 72, 2051 (2012)

2012
[37]

L. C. N. Santos, C. C. Barros Jr., Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 13 (2018)

2018
[38]

A. L. Cavalcanti de Oliveira, E. R. Bezerra de Mello, Class. Quant um Grav. 23, 5249 (2006)

2006
[39]

M. S. Cunha, C. R. Muniz, H. R. Christiansen, V. B. Bezerra, Eu r. Phys. J. C 76, 512 (2016)

2016
[40]

R. L. L. Vit´ oria, K. Bakke, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 48, 161 (2016)

2016
[41]

R. L. L. Vit´ oria, K. Bakke, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 27, 1850005 (2018)

2018
[42]

R. L. L. Vit´ oria, K. Bakke, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 133, 490 (2018)

2018
[43]

Bakke, H

K. Bakke, H. Belich, Ann. Phys. 360, 596 (2015)

2015
[44]

R. L. L. Vit´ oria, H. Belich, K. Bakke, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2017, 6893084 (2017)

2017
[45]

R. L. L. Vit´ oria, H. Belich, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2019, 1248393 (2019)

2019
[46]

Bakke, C

K. Bakke, C. Furtado, Ann. Phys. 355, 48 (2015)

2015
[47]

R. L. L. Vit´ oria, K. Bakke, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 131, 36 (2016)

2016
[48]

R. L. L. Vit´ oria, C. Furtado, K. Bakke, Ann. Phys. 370, 128 (2016)

2016
[49]

R. L. L. Vit´ oria, H. Belich, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 999 (2018)

2018
[50]

R. F. Ribeiro, K. Bakke, Ann. Phys. 385, 36 (2017)

2017
[51]

Z. Wang, Z. Long, C. Long, M. Wu, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 130, 36 (2015)

2015
[52]

R. L. L. Vit´ oria, C. Furtado, K. Bakke, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 44 (2018)

2018
[53]

E. V. B. Leite, H. Belich, K. Bakke, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2015, 925846 (2015)

2015
[54]

Kaluza, Sitzungsber

Th. Kaluza, Sitzungsber. K. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. K1, 966 (1921)

1921
[55]

O. Z. Klein, Phys. Z. 37, 895 (1926)

1926
[56]

We are interested in investigated a m assive scalar ﬁeld of position-dependent mass subject to a uniform magnetic ﬁeld and under the Aharonov-Bohm eﬀect for bound states [63, 64]

and w is the extra dimension. We are interested in investigated a m assive scalar ﬁeld of position-dependent mass subject to a uniform magnetic ﬁeld and under the Aharonov-Bohm eﬀect for bound states [63, 64]. Then, based on Refs. [53, 61], we ca n introduce a uniform magnetic...

2018
[57]

Furtado, F

C. Furtado, F. Moraes, V. B. Bezerra, Phys. Rev. D 59, 107504 (1999)

1999
[58]

V. B. Bezerra, C. Furtado, F. Moraes, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 15, 253 (2000)

2000
[59]

G. A. Marques, C. Furtado, V. B. Bezerra, F. Moraes, J. Phy s. A: Math. Gen. 34 5945 (2001)

2001
[60]

J. G. de Assis, C. Furtado, F. Moraes, V. B. Bezerra, Gravita tion and Cosmology, 6, 233 (2000)

2000
[61]

Bakke, A

K. Bakke, A. Yu. Petrov, C. Furtado, Ann. Phys. 327, 2946 (2012)

2012
[62]

Carvalho, A

J. Carvalho, A. M. M. Carvalho, E. Cavalcante, C. Furtado, Eu r. Phys. J. C 76, 365 (2016)

2016
[63]

Macias, H

A. Macias, H. Dehnen, Class. Quantum Grav. 8, 203 (1991) 12

1991
[64]

Aharonov, D

Y. Aharonov, D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 115 485 (1959)

1959
[65]

Peshkin, A

M. Peshkin, A. Tonomura, The Aharonov-Bohm Eﬀect in Lecture Notes in Physics , Vol. 340 (Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 1989)

1989
[66]

Alexandrou, P

C. Alexandrou, P. de Forcrand, O. Jahn, Nuclear Phys. B 119, 667 (2003)

2003
[67]

Ronveaux, Heun’s Diﬀerential Equations (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995)

A. Ronveaux, Heun’s Diﬀerential Equations (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995)

1995
[68]

G. B. Arfken, H. J. Weber, Mathematical Methods for Physicists , sixth edition (Elsevier Academic Press, New York, 2005)

2005
[69]

Asada, T

H. Asada, T. Futamase, Phys. Rev. D 56, R6062 (1997)

1997
[70]

C. L. Chrichﬁeld, J. Math. Phys. 17, 261 (1976)

1976
[71]

Bakke, Ann

K. Bakke, Ann. Phys. 341, 86 (2014)

2014
[72]

I. C. Fonseca, K. Bakke, J. Math. Phys. 56, 062107 (2014)

2014
[73]

P. M. T. Barboza, K. Bakke, Ann. Phys. 361, 259 (2015)

2015
[74]

S. M. Ikhdair, B. J. Falaye, M. Hamzavi, Ann. Phys. 353, 282 (2015)

2015
[75]

I. I. Guseinov, B. A. Mamedov, J. Chem. Phys. 121, 1649 (2004)

2004
[76]

I. I. Guseinov, J. Chem. Phys. 120, 9454 (2004)

2004
[77]

Souza Dutra, Phys

A. Souza Dutra, Phys. Rev. A 47, R2435 (1993)

1993
[78]

S. M. Ikhdair, M. Hamzavi, Physica B 407, 419 (2012)

2012
[79]

Bakke, C

K. Bakke, C. Furtado, Ann. Phys. 336, 489 (2013)

2013
[80]

E. J. Austin, Mol. Phys. 40, 893 (1980)

1980
[81]

E. R. Vrscay, Phys. Rev. A 31, 2054 (1985)

1985
[82]

Killingbeck, Rep

K. Killingbeck, Rep. Prog. Phys. 40, 963 (1977)

1977
[83]

Killingbeck, Phys

K. Killingbeck, Phys. Lett. A 65, 87 (1978)

1978
[84]

R. P. Saxena, V. S. Varma, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 15, L149 (1982)

1982
[85]

R. L. Gibbs, Am. J. Phys. 43, 25 (1975)

1975
[86]

R. D. Desko, D. J. Bord, Am. J. Phys. 51, 82 (1983)

1983
[87]

L. E. Ballentine, Quantum Mechanics, a Modern Development (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 1998) 13

1998

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Eisberg, R

R. Eisberg, R. Resnick, Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei and Par ticles, 2rd edn. (John Wiley, New York, 1985)

1985

[2] [2]

L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics: The Nonrelativistic Theory , 3rd edn. (Pergamon, Oxford, 1977)

1977

[3] [3]

A. D. Alhaidari, Phys. Rev. A 66, 042116 (2002)

2002

[4] [4]

A. D. Alhaidari, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 42, 2999 (2003)

2003

[5] [5]

A. D. Alhaidari, Phys. Lett. A 322, 72 (2004)

2004

[6] [6]

Chen, Phys

G. Chen, Phys. Lett. A 329, 22 (2004)

2004

[7] [7]

S. Dong, J. J. Pe˜ na, C. Pacheco-Garc´a, J. Gars ´ ıa-Ravelo,Mod. Phys. Lett. A 22, 1039 (2007)

work page 2007

[8] [8]

Von Roos, Phys

O. Von Roos, Phys. Rev. B 27, 7547 (1983)

work page 1983