arX

iv:1

909.

0618

7v3

[ph

ysic

s.ge

n-ph

] 5

Apr

202

0

Thermal properties of a two-dimensional Duffin-Kemmer-Petiau oscillator under an

external magnetic field in the presence of a minimal length

Houcine Aounallah,1, ∗ Jan Krız,2, † and Bekir Can Lutfuoglu3, 2, ‡

1Laboratory of Applied and Theoretical Physics, Larbi Tebessi University, 12000 Tebessa, Algeria2Department of Physics, University of Hradec Kralove,

Rokitanskeho 62, 500 03 Hradec Kralove, Czechia3Department of Physics, Akdeniz University, Campus 07058 Antalya, Turkey

(Dated: April 7, 2020)

Generalized uncertainty principle puts forward the existence of the shortest distances and/or max-imum momentum at the Planck scale for consideration. In this article, we investigate the solutionsof a two-dimensional Duffin-Kemmer-Petiau (DKP) oscillator within an external magnetic field ina minimal length (ML) scale. First, we obtain the eigensolutions in ordinary quantum mechanics.Then, we examine the DKP oscillator in the presence of an ML for the spin-zero and spin-onesectors. We determine an energy eigenvalue equation in both cases with the corresponding eigen-functions in the non-relativistic limit. We show that in the ordinary quantum mechanic limit, wherethe ML correction vanishes, the energy eigenvalue equations become identical with the habitualquantum mechanical ones. Finally, we employ the Euler-Mclaurin summation formula and obtainthe thermodynamic functions of the DKP oscillator in the high-temperature scale.

PACS numbers: 03.65.Ge, 03.65.Pm

Keywords: DKP oscillator, external magnetic field, minimal length, thermodynamic properties.

∗ houcine.aounallah@univ-tebessa.dz† jan.kriz@uhk.cz‡ Corresponding author : bclutfuoglu@akdeniz.edu.tr

2

I. INTRODUCTION

During recent years, the number of extensive research subjected to the Generalized Uncertainty Principle (GUP)in quantum mechanics [1], quantum electrodynamics [2], quantum cosmology [3], quantum gravity [4], black-holephysics [5], and its thermodynamics [6] have increased. GUP admits that absolute precision in position or momentummeasurements does not exist and it predicts a lower bound fundamental scale around the Planck scale. Mathematically,the GUP concept is given by modified commutation relations among position and momentum operators of the standardHeisenberg algebra. For the alteration, a small positive parameter, β, is employed. This minimal length (ML)parameter modifies the algebra by

[Xi, Pj

]= i~δij

(1 + βp2

), (1)

[Xi, Xj

]= −2i~β

(1 + βp2

)εijkLk, (2)

[Pi, Pj

]= 0, (3)

where Lk is the usual angular momentum operator that satisfies the standard Heisenberg algebra. As a consequenceof this modification, a more general expression, namely GUP,

(X) (P ) ≥ i~

(1 + β

(P

)2), (4)

is obtained instead of the Heisenberg uncertainty relation [7–11]. Note that when the ML parameter goes to zero, theGUP expression turns to the standard uncertainty relationship in the ordinary quantum mechanics (OQM).In the past hundred years, exact or approximate solutions to the Schrodinger equation have been investigated to

describe the physical processes in the OQM [12–14]. This non-relativistic equation has also been examined within theGUP perspective [15–18]. In particular, Bhat et al. calculated the correction term to the energy eigenvalue functionof a gravitational quantum well, by employing infinite extra dimensions [18].The Klein-Gordon(KG) and the Dirac equations were frequently used in studies examining relativistic physical

processes [19–24]. These well-known differential equations were also explored within the GUP. For example, in thepresence of the ML, Jana et al. obtained an exact solution to the KG equation by employing a linear and vectorpotential energy [25]. In 2018, Boumali et al. investigated a two dimensional KG oscillator under the GUP [26]. Inanother study, Elviyanti et al. employed Asymptotic Iteration Method to examine the Hulten potential energy in theKG equation in the ML [27]. Additionally, in 2013, Menculini et al. studied the relativistic Landau problem in Diracequation within the presence of the ML and reported an exact solution of the wave function in the momentum space[28]. In 2015, Pedram et al. studied the two dimensional Dirac equation by employing a non-varying magnetic fieldin an ML. They concluded that the solution that was found by Menculini et al. was a subset of the general solutionwhich was correlated with the even quantum numbers [29]. In a very recent paper, Hamil et al. investigated the Diracoscillator in two and three dimensions. They announced that their results could predict the upper bound of the GUPparameter of the relativistic Landau levels in graphene [30].Duffin-Kemmer-Petiau (DKP) equation is another relativistic equation that appeared a century ago [31–34].It is a

Dirac-like first-order equation that describes the dynamics of a spin-zero and spin-one boson together. At the sametime, it possesses a very complex algebraic structure. Moreover, before the 1970’s its solutions were considered to beequivalent to the KG and Proca equations in on-shell cases. However, after then, it was comprehended that in specialcases that involve a symmetry breaking and hadronic processes, the solution of the DKP equation differs from thoseof other equations [35]. Recently, in the literature, we have seen comprehensive studies that focused on the solutionof the DKP equation. For example, Boumali et al. investigated a two dimensional DKP oscillator under the effectof a magnetic field [35]. Falek et al. investigated a three dimensional DKP oscillator [36]. Moreover, they considereda deformed DKP oscillator with Snyder-de Sitter algebra in a momentum space with and without a magnetic field[37, 38]. One of the authors of this article, Aounallah with his collaborator, obtained exact solutions of the DKPequation with Aharonov-Bohm and Coulomb potential energies in the commutative [39] and non commutative [40]space-times which are assumed to be produced by a cosmic string. Hosseinpour et al. discussed the dynamic of theDKP particles in the space-time that are initiated with a spinning cosmic string [41]. Wang et al. studied the spin-onesector of the DKP oscillator in non commutative space in two dimension [42, 43]. Hun et al. considered the DKPoscillator in a curved space-time [44]. In addition to these studies, Lunardi and Chargui contributed the field withremarkable articles. In particular, Lunardi, he discussed the equivalency of the spin-one and spin-zero representationof the DKP equation in one dimension [45]. Chargui revisited the DKP equation with linear potential energies in onedimension and reported some inaccurate discussions in the literature [46].

3

Comprehending the thermal properties of physical systems is important for their applications in the real world.We observe that scientists have begun to discuss the thermal properties of the models they are handling. One of thepioneering work in this area was given by Pacheco et al. in 2003 [47]. There, they investigated the thermodynamicproperties of a one-dimensional Dirac oscillator. Later, they extended their work to three dimensions [48]. Nouiceranalyzed a one-dimensional Dirac oscillator in the presence of the ML and examined its statistical properties [49].Hamil et al. studied the Dirac and KG oscillators and reported their thermal properties on anti-de Sitter space [50].Wu et al. investigated thermodynamic functions of a two-dimensional DKP oscillator in the GUP formalism [51].

The presence of an external magnetic field plays a crucial role in physical phenomena. For example, the energylevels of hydrogen-like atoms are splitting with the external magnetic field and this fact is known as the Zeeman effect.On the other hand, two dimensional systems such as graphene, gather interest, especially in the nano-physics sector.To our knowledge, the solutions of a two-dimensional DKP oscillator under an external magnetic field in the presenceof the ML has not been discussed with the statistical point of view. Our main motivation is to obtain the modificationof the thermodynamic functions. We believe this investigation is going to fill the missing gap in the literature.

We organize the article as follows. In sect. II, we review the irreducible representations of the DKP equation forboth the spin-zero and spin-one particles. In sect. III, we derive an exact solution to the two-dimensional DKPoscillator under the effect of an homogeneous magnetic field by employing the polar coordinates in the momentumspace within the rules of ordinary quantum mechanics (OQM). In sect. IV, we investigate an exact solution of theproblem in the GUP in the non-relativistic limit. In sect. V we obtain the thermodynamic functions by employingEuler-Mclaurin summation formula in the high temperature approach for the spin-zero DKP oscillator in the canonicalensemble formalism. Moreover, we demonstrate the thermal properties in the figures. We conclude the article in sect.VI.

II. FORMALISM OF THE DKP EQUATION

In flat space-time, the DKP equation is given by [31–34]

(i~βµ∂µ −Mc

)Ψ(~r, t) = 0, µ = 0, 1, 2, 3 (5)

where M , ~ and c denote the mass, reduced Planck constant, and speed of light, respectively. βµ matrices satisfy theDKP algebra

βκβνβλ + βλβνβκ = gκνβλ + gνλβκ. (6)

where κ, ν, λ = 0, 1, 2, 3. We examine the problem in the Minkowski space-time and we use the metric tensor, gµν ,with the diag (1,−1,−1,−1) signature. Note that there are 126 independent elements in the algebra. These elementscan be reduced into three irreducible representations of dimensions one, five, and ten. Among them, one-dimensionalrepresentation is the trivial one. The others, namely the five and ten-dimensional representations, describe spin-zeroand spin-one particle dynamics, respectively.

For a scalar particle, we choose the representation that is given with 5× 5 matrices [35]

β0 =

(ρ2×2 02×3

0T3×2 03×3

), (7)

βi =

(02×2 ρi2×3

−ρiT

3×2 03×3

), (8)

where i = 1, 2, 3. Note that the subscripts indicate the row and column numbers. Here, 02×2, 02×3,03×3 are zeromatrices, while the non-zero matrices are

ρ2×2 =

(0 11 0

), (9)

ρ12×3 =

(−1 0 00 0 0

), ρ22×3 =

(0 −1 00 0 0

), ρ32×3 =

(0 0 −10 0 0

). (10)

4

For a vector particle, we take the spin-one representation that is given with 10× 10 matrices [35]

β0 =

03×3 03×3 −I3×3 0T3×1

03×3 03×3 03×3 0T3×1

−I3×3 03×3 03×3 0T3×1

01×3 01×3 01×3 0

, (11)

βk =

03×3 03×3 03×3 iKjT

03×3 03×3 sj3×3 0T

3×1

03×3 −sj3×3 03×3 0T

3×1

iKj 01×3 01×3 0

. (12)

where j = 1, 2, 3, and

0T3×1 =

000

, I =

1 0 00 1 00 0 1

, (13)

s1 = i

0 0 00 0 −10 1 0

, s2 = i

0 0 10 0 0−1 0 0

, s3 = i

0 −1 01 0 00 0 0

, (14)

K1 =(1 0 0

), K2 =

(0 1 0

), K3 =

(0 0 1

). (15)

III. DKP OSCILLATOR WITHIN OQM

In this section, we formulate the DKP oscillator and investigate its solution for spin-zero and spin-one particles inOQM limit. We assume that the potential energy and external magnetic field that are time-independent.

A. Case of the spin-zero particle

In (2+1) dimension, we express a DKP oscillator for a spin-zero particle with a non-minimal coupling to an externalmagnetic field as [35]

[β0E − cβ1

(px − eAx

c− iMωη0x

)− cβ2

(py − eAy

c− iMωη0y

)−Mc21

]Ψ = 0. (16)

Here, E is the energy eigenvalues and ω is the frequency of the oscillator. We denote the momentum and positionoperators with bold letters. The matrix η0 is defined by η0 ≡ 2(β0)2−1 and its square is equal to the identity matrix.We employ a vector potential with two components: Ax = −B

2 y and Ay = B2 x. Here, we symbolize the strength of

the magnetic field via B. We express the transposed form of the spatial wave function with

ΨT ≡(Ψ1 Ψ2 Ψ3 Ψ4 Ψ5

). (17)

We substitute Eq. (17) into Eq. (16) and obtain the following coupled equations.

−Mc2Ψ1 + EΨ2 + c(px −Mωy + iMωx

)Ψ3 + c

(py +Mωx+ iMωy

)Ψ4 = 0, (18)

EΨ1 −Mc2Ψ2 = 0, (19)

c(px −Mωy − iMωx

)Ψ1 +Mc2Ψ3 = 0, (20)

c(py +Mωx− im0ωy

)Ψ1 +Mc2Ψ4 = 0, (21)

Ψ5 = 0, (22)

where ω is the cyclotron frequency and defined by |e|B2Mc . Note that the fifth component of the wave equation is equal

to zero. By writing the second, third and fourth components in terms of the first component, we obtain[c2(px −Mωy + iMωx

)(px −Mωy − iMωx

)

+ c2(py +Mωx+ iMωy

)(py +Mωx− iMωy

)+(M2c4 − E2

)]Ψ1 = 0. (23)

5

Then, as done in [51], we employ the operators defined in polar coordinates in the momentum space in Eq. (23)

x ≡ i~

(cos θ

∂

∂p− sin θ

p

∂

∂θ

), (24)

y ≡ i~

(sin θ

∂

∂p+

cos θ

p

∂

∂θ

), (25)

px ≡ p cos θ, (26)

py ≡ p sin θ. (27)

We obtain[p2 − 2M~

(ω + iω

∂

∂θ

)−M2

~2Ω2

(∂2

∂p2+

1

p

∂

∂p+

1

p2∂2

∂θ2

)− ς

]Ψ1 = 0. (28)

where

Ω2 ≡ ω2 + ω2, (29)

ς ≡ E2 −M2c4

c2. (30)

Then, we separate the wave function into the spatial and angular parts

Ψ1(p, θ) ≡ f(p)eimθ, (31)

where m = 0,±1,±2,±3, · · · . After we substitute the decomposed wave function into Eq. (28), we find[d2

dp2+

1

p

d

dp− m2

p2+(κ2m − k2p2

)]f(p) = 0. (32)

Here,

κ2m ≡ 2M~(ω −mω) + ς

M2~2Ω2, (33)

k2 ≡ 1

M2~2Ω2. (34)

We consider the following Ansatz

f(p) ≡ p|m|e−k2p2

F (p), (35)

and then we employ it in Eq. (32). We get

F′′

(p) +

(2|m|+ 1

p− 2kp

)F

′

(p)−(2k(|m|+ 1

)− κ2

m

)F (p) = 0. (36)

We introduce a new transformation, namely t = kp2, and use in Eq. (36). We obtain

td2F (t)

dt2+

(|m|+ 1− t

)dF (t)

dt−(1

2

(|m|+ 1

)− κ2

m

4k

)F (t) = 0, (37)

which is known as the Kummer’s differential equation and its solutions are expressed in terms of confluent hypergeo-metric functions [52].

F (t) = N1 1F1

(1

2

(|m|+ 1

)− κ2

m

4k, |m|+ 1, t

)+N2 1U1

(1

2

(|m|+ 1

)− κ2

m

4k, |m|+ 1, t

). (38)

Here, 1F1

(12

(|m|+1

)− κ2

m

4k , |m|+1, t

)and 1U1

(12

(|m|+1

)− κ2

m

4k , |m|+1, t

)are the first and second kind confluent

hypergeometric function. Note that we denote the normalization constants with N1 and N2. To avoid a singularityat p = 0, thus at t = 0, we pick N2 = 0. Then, we adopt the condition for obtaining a polynomial type solution fromconfluent hypergeometric function

1

2

(|m|+ 1

)− κ2

m

4k= −n (39)

6

where n = 0, 1, 2, 3, · · · . We derive the energy spectrum function as

En,m = ±Mc2[1 +

2~(mω − ω

)

Mc2+

~Ω(4n+ 2(|m|+ 1)

)

Mc2

]1/2. (40)

This result is in agreement with [35]. Finally, we express the first component of the wave function as follows

Ψ1n,m (p, θ) = Cn,mp|m|e−k2p2

1F1

(−n; |m|+ 1; kp2

)eimθ. (41)

where Cn,m is the normalization constant. The general solution of the first component of the wave function is thelinear combination of separable solutions.

Ψ1(p, θ, t) =

∞∑

n=0

n∑

m=−n

Ψ1n,m(p, θ) exp

(− iEn,mt

~

)(42)

1. The non-relativistic limit

In the non-relativistic limit we assume that the rest mass energy is much greater then the non-relativistic energy,ENRL. We use E ∼= Mc2 + ENRL to derive the non-relativistic energy expression [37]. We get

ENRL ∼= E2 −M2c4

2Mc2. (43)

Following a simple algebra, we obtain the non-relativistic energy as follows:

ENRLn,m = ~

[√ω2 + ω2

(2n+ |m|+ 1

)+(mω − ω

)]. (44)

This result corrects the typo of Eq. (48) in [35].

B. Case of the spin-one particle

In the spin-one case, unlike the spin-zero case, we use another non-trivial irreducible representation of the DKPalgebra where β matrices are defined with 10× 10 matrices. Therefore, the total wave function has ten components.We define the transposed form of the stationary wave function with

ΨT ≡(Ψ1 Ψ2 Ψ3 Ψ4 Ψ5 Ψ6 Ψ7 Ψ8 Ψ9 Ψ10

). (45)

We substitute the wave function in Eq. (16) and obtain the following coupled equations.

Mc2Ψ1 + EΨ7 + ic(px −Mωy + iMωx

)Ψ10 = 0, (46)

Mc2Ψ2 + EΨ8 + ic(py +Mωx+ iMωy

)Ψ10 = 0, (47)

Mc2Ψ3 + EΨ9 = 0, (48)

Mc2Ψ4 + ic(py +Mωx− iMωy

)Ψ9 = 0, (49)

Mc2Ψ5 − ic(px −Mωy − iMωx

)Ψ9 = 0, (50)

ic(py +Mωx− iMωy

)Ψ7 − ic

(px −Mωy − iMωx

)Ψ8 −Mc2Ψ6 = 0, (51)

−Mc2Ψ7 − EΨ1 + ic(py +Mωx+ iMωy

)Ψ6 = 0, (52)

Mc2Ψ8 + EΨ2 + ic(px −Mωy + iMωx

)Ψ6 = 0, (53)

−ic(py +Mωx+ iMωy

)Ψ4 + ic

(px −Mωy + iMωx

)Ψ5 − EΨ3 −Mc2Ψ9 = 0, (54)

ic(px −Mωy − iMωx

)Ψ1 + ic

(py +Mωx− iMωy

)Ψ2 +Mc2Ψ10 = 0. (55)

To our knowledge, the analytic solutions to these coupled equation remain unknown. Instead, some authors employedEqs. (48), (49), (50) and (54) to build a correlation among the third, fourth, fifth and ninth components [35, 51].Moreover, without giving any arguments nor physical justifications they made an ansatz and assumed that Ψ1 = Ψ2 =

7

0, thus, Ψ6 = Ψ7 = Ψ8 = Ψ10 = 0. With this ansatz, six of the ten equations vanish identically and the equation forthe ninth component appears as

[c2(px −Mωy + iMωx

)(px −Mωy − iMωx

)

+ c2(py +Mωx+ iMωy

)(py +Mωx− iMωy

)+(M2c4 − E2

)]Ψ9 = 0. (56)

Note that Eq. (56) is equivalent to Eq. (23). Therefore, the energy spectrum functions in the spin-one and spin-zerocases become identical to each other. However, this can be accepted only as a very particular solution.Instead of following that ansatz, we examine the spin-one case in another formalism as given in [36–38]. We rewrite

the ten component spinor by using three vectors with three components and a scalar as follows:

ΨT ≡(B, C, A, ϕ

). (57)

Here the vectors are defined with the following components

A ≡(Ψ1, Ψ2, Ψ3

), (58)

B ≡(Ψ4, Ψ5, Ψ6

), (59)

C ≡(Ψ7, Ψ8, Ψ9

), (60)

ϕ ≡ Ψ10. (61)

Then, we define two new vectors with three components

P+ ≡(Q1, Q2, 0

), (62)

P− ≡(Q3, Q4, 0

), (63)

where

Q1 ≡ ic(px −Mωy + iMωx

), (64)

Q2 ≡ ic(py +Mωx+ iMωy

), (65)

Q3 ≡ ic(px −Mωy − iMωx

), (66)

Q4 ≡ ic(py +Mωx− iMωy

). (67)

With the help of these definitions, we reduce the set of equations to

Mc2B+ EA+P+ϕ = 0, (68)

Mc2C+P− ×A = 0, (69)

Mc2A+ EB−P+ ×C = 0, (70)

P− ·B+Mc2ϕ = 0. (71)

We decouple the equations by eliminating B, C, and ϕ in terms of A. We get

(E2 −M2c4)A+[(P− ·P+)A− (P+ ×P−)×A

]+

1

M2c4P+[P− ·

(P+ ×

(P− ×A

))]= 0. (72)

Next, we evaluate (P− ·P+)A and (P+ ×P−)×A. We find

(P− ·P+)A = −c2[(pxpx + pypy

)+ 2MωLz +M2

(ω2 + ω2

)(xx+ yy

)− 2M~ω

]A (73)

(P+ ×P−)×A = −c2[2M2ωω

(xx+ yy

)+ 2MωLz − 2M~ω

]sz

~A (74)

where [x,px] = i~ and Lz = xpy − ypx. By substituting the terms we get

(E2 −M2c4)A− c2[(pxpx + pypy

)+ 2MLz

(ω − ω

sz

~

)+M2

(xx+ yy

)(ω2 + ω22ωω

sz

~

)

− 2M~

(ω − ω

sz

~

)]A−+

1

M2c4P+[P− ·

(P+ ×

(P− ×A

))]= 0. (75)

To the best of our knowledge, there is no known exact solution to this equation [30].

8

1. The non-relativistic limit

We go to the non-relativistic limit

(E2 −M2c4)

2Mc2A−

[(pxpx + pypy

)

2M+ Lz

(ω − ω

sz

~

)+

M

2

(xx+ yy

)(ω2 + ω2 − 2ωω

sz

~

)− ~

(ω − ω

sz

~

)]A

+1

2(Mc2)3P+[P− ·

(P+ ×

(P− ×A

))]= 0. (76)

Then, we ignore the last term since it is in order of (Mc2)−3 and use the non-zero eigenvalues of sz, (ms = ~, 0,−~)[37]

[p2

2M+

M(ω2 + ω2 ± 4ωω

)

2r2 + Lz

(ω ± 2ω

)− ~(ω ± 2ω

)]A = ENRL

n,m A. (77)

We find the non relativistic energy eigenvalue function as follows [53]:

ENRLn,m = ~

[√ω2 + ω2 ± 4ωω

(2n+ |m|+ 1

)+m

(ω ± 2ω

)−(ω ± 2ω

)]. (78)

We conclude that the energy spectrum function in the spin-one case differs from the spin-zero case in the non-relativistic limit.

IV. DKP OSCILLATOR IN THE ML QUANTUM MECHANICS

In the ML formalism, we consider the modified Heisenberg algebra generated by the coordinate, Xi, and themomentum, Pi, operators which satisfy the algebra given in Eqs. (1), (2), and (3). We employ the Heisenberg algebrarepresentation on the momentum space where the momentum and position operators act on a momentum space wavefunction as given

PiΨ(p) = piΨ(p), (79)

XiΨ(p) = i~(1 + βp2

) ∂

∂piΨ(p). (80)

Note that the ML parameter has the inverse square of the momentum unit. Before we proceed through the followingsection, we would like to remind the definition of the inner product as well.

(Ψ, Ψ

)=

∫ ∞

−∞

dp

1 + βp2Ψ∗(p)Φ(p). (81)

A. Case of the spin-zero particle

In this subsection, we investigate the DKP oscillator that is examined in Sec. III A in the ML formalism. Since weassume that the oscillator is under the effect of an equivalent external magnetic field, we obtain the same five coupledequations that are given in Eqs. (18), (19), (20), (21), and (22), thus, Eq. (23). We employ the momentum andposition operators, which are defined by the ML formalism with Eq. (79) and Eq. (80), in the Eq. (23). In the polarcoordinates, we find a differential equation for the first component of the wave function as follows

p2 − 2M~

(1 + βp2

)[(ω + iω

∂

∂θ

)+ βM~

(Ω2p

∂

∂p− 2iωω

∂

∂θ

)]

−M2~2Ω2

(1 + βp2

)2(

∂2

∂p2+

1

p

∂

∂p+

1

p2∂2

∂θ2

)− ς

Ψ1 = 0. (82)

Note that, when the ML parameter is taken to be zero, Eq. (82) reduces to Eq. (28). Next, we decouple the wavefunction to spatial and angular parts as given in Eq. (31), and use it in Eq. (82). We find

p2 − 2M~

(1 + βp2

)[(ω −mω

)+ βM~

(Ω2p

d

dp+ 2mωω

)]

−M2~2Ω2

(1 + βp2

)2(

d2

dp2+

1

p

d

dp− m2

p2

)− ς

f(p) = 0. (83)

9

Then, we follow the paper of Jana et al. [25]. There, they showed that a second order differential equation in theform

[− a(p)

d2

dp2+ b(p)

d

dp+ c(p)

]φ(p) = ςφ(p), (84)

is transformed to a Schrodinger-type differential equation by employing

ζ(p) ≡da(p)dp + 2b(p)

4a(p), (85)

ρ(p) ≡ exp

∫ζ(p)dp, (86)

φ(p) ≡ ρ(p)ϕ(p). (87)

We match Eq. (84) with Eq. (83) to determine a(p), b(p), and c(p) functions. We find

a(p) = M2~2Ω2

(1 + βp2

)2, (88)

b(p) = −2βM2~2Ω2p

(1 + βp2

)− M2

~2Ω2

(1 + βp2

)2

p, (89)

c(p) = p2 − 2M~(1 + βp2

)((ω −mω

)+ 2βM~mωω

)+

M2~2Ω2

(1 + βp2

)2m2

p2. (90)

We calculate ζ(p), then, ρ(p), and obtain

φ(p) =1√pϕ(p) (91)

which converts Eq. (84) to

[− a(p)

d2

dp2+

(a(p)

p+ b(p)

)d

dp+

(c(p)− 3a(p)

4p2− b(p)

2p

)]ϕ(p) = ςϕ(p). (92)

Next, we use a variable change

q ≡∫

dp√a(p)

, (93)

that transforms the p coordinate to q coordinate via

p =1√βtan

(M~Ω

√βq)

(94)

in Eq. (92). After a straightforward calculation we obtain

−d2χ(q)

dq2+ βM2

~2Ω2

[ξ1(ξ1 − 1)

sin2(M~Ω

√βq) +

ξ2(ξ2 − 1)

cos2(M~Ω

√βq)]χ(q) = σχ(q) (95)

where

σ ≡ ς +1

β, (96)

ξ1(ξ1 − 1) ≡(m2 − 1

4

), (97)

ξ2(ξ2 − 1) ≡ 1

β2M2~2Ω2− 2

(ω −mω

)

βM~Ω2− 4ωωm

Ω2+(m2 +

3

4

). (98)

We introduce a new coordinate transformation of the form

z ≡ sin2(M~Ω

√βq)

(99)

10

and we get

z(1− z)d2u(z)

dz2+(12− z)du(z)

dz+

1

4

[σ

βM2~2Ω2− ξ1(ξ1 − 1)

z− ξ2(ξ2 − 1)

1− z

]u(z) = 0. (100)

We propose the general solution as an Ansatz

u(z) ≡ z|ξ1|2 (1− z)

|ξ2|2 v(z) (101)

and we obtain the hypergeometric equation in the following form of

z(1− z)d2v(z)

dz2+

[(|ξ1|+

1

2

)− z(1 + |ξ1|+ |ξ2|

)]dv(z)dz

− 1

4

[(|ξ1|+ |ξ2|

)− σ

βM2~2Ω2

]v(z) = 0. (102)

The general solution of the hypergeometric function is given as [52]

v(z) = C1 2F1

(1

2

(|ξ1|+ |ξ2|+

1

M~Ω

√σ

β

),1

2

(|ξ1|+ |ξ2| −

1

M~Ω

√σ

β

), |ξ1|+

1

2, z

)(103)

+ C2z1

2−|ξ1|

2F1

(1

2

(1− |ξ1|+ |ξ2|+

1

M~Ω

√σ

β

),1

2

(1− |ξ1|+ |ξ2| −

1

M~Ω

√σ

β

),3

2− |ξ1|, z

)

where C1 and C2 are normalization constants. Note that, Eqs. (97) and (98) are quadratic equations, thus they havetwo roots. In both, we take the larger root from the quadratic formula. To avoid a singularity, we set C2 = 0. Then,we employ the quantization condition

1

2

(|ξ1|+ |ξ2|+

1

M~Ω

√σ

β

)= −n (104)

where n is an integer. After simple calculus, we obtain the energy function

En,m = ±Mc2[1 +

2~ (mω − ω)

Mc2+

~Ω (4n+ 2 (|m|+ 1))

Mc2|√αm|+ |Λn,m|

M2c4

] 1

2

, (105)

where

αm ≡[1 + 2βM~ (mω − ω) + β2M2

~2(Ω2(m2 + 1

)− 4mωω

)], (106)

Λn,m ≡ β (Mc~Ω)2[(2n+m+ 1

)2+m2 + 1− 4mωω

Ω2

]. (107)

We would like to emphasize that in the limit of β = 0, α goes to 1 while Λn,m vanishes. Therefore, Eq. (105) turns toEq. (40), which means we end with the habitual quantum mechanical result. Moreover, in another limit, where theexternal magnetic field does not exist, the cyclotron frequency vanishes and the energy eigenvalue function becomesidentical to the one given in Eq. (34) in [51].

1. The non-relativistic limit

In this limit, the energy spectrum function reduces to

ENRLn,m = ~

[√ω2 + ω2

(2n+ |m|+ 1

)|√αm|+

(mω − ω

)]+∣∣ΛNRL

n,m

∣∣, (108)

where

ΛNRLn,m =

βM

2(~Ω)2

[(2n+m+ 1

)2+m2 + 1− 4mωω

Ω2

]. (109)

11

B. Case of the spin-one particle

In this subsection, we examine the DKP oscillator for a spin-one particle in the ML formalism in the non-relativisticlimit. We employ Eqs.(79) and (80) in Eq.( 77) with the polar coordinates’ definitions given with Eqs. (24), (25),(26) and (27). Then, we allocate the wave function into the spatial and angular functions. For the spatial part, weget

[p2 −M2

(ω2 + ω2 ± 4ωω

)[~2(1 + βp2

)2(

d2

dp2+

1

p

d

dp− m2

p2

)+ 2β~2p

(1 + βp2

) d

dp

]

+ 2mM~(ω ± 2ω)(1 + βp2

)− 2M~(ω ± 2ω)− 2MENRL

]g(p) = 0. (110)

Similarly to the spin-zero case, we follow the paper of Jana et al. [25]. We define Ω2 ≡(ω2 +ω2± 4ωω

)and compare

Eq. (110) with Eq. (84). We obtain

a(p) = M2~2Ω2

(1 + βp2

)2(111)

b(p) = −M2~2Ω2

(1 + βp2

)2

p− 2βM2

~2Ω2p

(1 + βp2

)(112)

c(p) = p2 +m2M2~2Ω2

(1 + βp2

)2

p2+ 2mM~(ω ± 2ω)

(1 + βp2

)− 2M~(ω ± 2ω) (113)

Then, we use Eqs. (85), (86) and (87) to calculate Eq. (91). We change the variables as given in Eqs. (93) and (94)and get

[− d2

dq2+ βM2

~2Ω2

(ξ1(ξ1 − 1)

sin2(M~Ω

√βq) +

ξ2(ξ2 − 1)

cos2(M~Ω

√βq))]

χ(q) = σχ(q) (114)

where

σ ≡ 2M(ENRL + ~(ω ± 2ω)

)+

1

β, (115)

ξ1(ξ1 − 1) ≡(m2 − 1

4

), (116)

ξ2(ξ2 − 1) ≡ 1

β2M2~2Ω2+

2m(ω ± 2ω

)

βM~Ω2+

(m2 +

3

4

). (117)

The roots of Eqs. (116) and (117) are

ξ1 = ±m+1

2, (118)

ξ2 = ±√κm +

1

2, (119)

where

κm ≡ 1 + 2βMm~(ω ± 2ω

)

β2M2~2Ω2+(m2 + 1

). (120)

We prefer to choose the positive root between them. Then, we introduce the transformation z ≡ sin2(M~Ω

√βq).

We find

z(1− z)d2u(z)

dz2+(12− z)du(z)

dz+

1

4

[σ

βM2~2Ω2− ξ1(ξ1 − 1)

z− ξ2(ξ2 − 1)

1− z

]u(z) = 0. (121)

and then, for the general solution we make an Ansatz

u(z) ≡ z|ξ1|2 (1− z)

|ξ2|2 v(z). (122)

12

We obtain

z(1− z)d2v(z)

dz2+

[(|ξ1|+

1

2

)− z(1 + |ξ1|+ |ξ2|

)]dv(z)dz

− 1

4

[(|ξ1|+ |ξ2|

)− σ

βM2~2Ω2

]v(z) = 0. (123)

This type of equation admits solutions in terms of hypergeometric functions [52].

v(z) = D1 2F1

(1

2

(|ξ1|+ |ξ2|+

1

M~Ω

√σ

β

),1

2

(|ξ1|+ |ξ2| −

1

M~Ω

√σ

β

), |ξ1|+

1

2, z

)(124)

+ D2z1

2−|ξ1|

2F1

(1

2

(1− |ξ1|+ |ξ2|+

1

M~Ω

√σ

β

),1

2

(1− |ξ1|+ ξ2 −

1

M~Ω

√σ

β

),3

2− |ξ1|, z

).

Here D1 and D2 are the normalization constants. For the regularity of the wave function at z = 0, we choose D2 = 0.The quantization condition gives

|ξ1|+ |ξ2|+1

M~Ω

√σ

β= −2n (125)

where n is an integer. Finally, we employ Eqs. (115), (118) and (119) in the quantization condition and derive theenergy eigenvalue function as

ENRLn,m = ~

[√ω2 + ω2 ± 4ωω

(2n+ |m|+ 1

)|√αm|+m

(ω ± 2ω

)−(ω ± 2ω

)]+∣∣ΛNRL

n,m

∣∣. (126)

where

αm = 1 + 2βMm~ (ω ± 2ω) + β2M2~2Ω2

(m2 + 1

), (127)

ΛNRLn,m =

βM

2

(~Ω)2 [(

2n+m+ 1)2

+m2 + 1]. (128)

Note that, when β = 0, the result becomes identical to the OQM result, which is given in Eq. (78).

V. THERMAL PROPERTIES

In this section, we investigate the statistical properties of the two-dimensional DKP oscillator that is under theeffect of an external magnetic field in the presence of an ML. Although we derived spectrum functions for spin-zeroand spin-one cases in the previous sections, for the sake of the length of the manuscript, we will merely investigatethe thermal properties of the spin-zero particle ensemble at high-temperatures. We assume that the DKP oscillator isin an equilibrium state at a finite temperature, T . We employ the definition of the partition function of the canonicalensemble

Z ≡∞∑

n=0

n∑

m=−n

exp

(− En,m

kBT

). (129)

Here, kB is the Boltzmann constant. We establish the thermodynamic ensemble by considering the states with positiveeigenvalues out of all values in the energy spectrum, because we do not accept the negative energy states as physicalstates since they are not bounded from below. Thus, we guarantee that the stability of the ensemble [48]. We takeinto account the energy spectrum that is derived in Eq. (105) with the correlated expressions given in Eqs. (106) and(107). We use

y2n,m ≡ 1 +2~(mω − ω

)

Mc2+

~Ω(4n+ 2

(∣∣m|+ 1))

Mc2

∣∣√αm

∣∣+∣∣∣Λn,m

M2c4

∣∣∣, (130)

γ ≡ Mc2

kBT. (131)

to express the partition function as

Z =

∞∑

n=0

F (n), (132)

13

where

F (n) ≡n∑

m=−n

exp(− γyn,m

). (133)

We employ the Euler-Mclaurin summation formula to compute the partition function as done in [37, 38, 49].

∞∑

n=0

F (n) =1

2F (0) +

∫ ∞

0

dnF (n)−∞∑

ρ=1

B2ρ

(2ρ)!F (2ρ−1)(0), (134)

Here, B2ρ represents the Bernoulli numbers while F (2ρ−1) denotes the order of the derivative. First, we execute theintegral term

∫ ∞

0

dnF (n) =Mc2

2~Ω

∫ +∞

y0,0

yn,mdyn,m

[1

1− β (Mc)2(1 − y2n,m)

] 1

2

exp(− γyn,m

), (135)

where

y0,0 =

√√√√1− 2~ω

Mc2+

2~ω√1 + ω2

ω2

Mc2

∣∣∣1− βM~ω∣∣∣

√

1 +

(βM~ω

1− βM~ω

)2

+2βM2c2~2(ω2 + ω2)

(Mc2)2. (136)

We evaluate the integral in the high temperature region just after we expand the square root to its Taylor series. Weobtain

∫ ∞

0

dnF (n) =Mc2

2~Ω

√1− β (Mc)

2

(kBT

Mc2

)2∑

ρ=0

Γ (2ρ+ 2)(2ρ)!

(2ρρ!)2

(β (Mc)

2

β (Mc)2 − 1

)ρ (kBT

Mc2

)2ρ

. (137)

Then, we focus on the first and third terms in Eq. (134). They are constituted from F (n)∣∣∣n=0

, dF (n)dn

∣∣∣n=0

, d3F (n)dn3

∣∣∣n=0

,

· · · functions, which depend on the reciprocal temperature. Therefore at higher temperatures, their contributionsbecome negligible and we ignore them [37, 38, 49].As the final step, we expand the summation given in Eq. (137) and keep the terms only up to the first order of the

ML parameter. We obtain the partition function as

Z =Mc2

2~Ω

√1− β (Mc)

2

[(kBT

Mc2

)2

+ 6

(β (Mc)

2

β (Mc)2 − 1

)(kBT

Mc2

)4]−[√

1− β (Mc)2(1− y20,0

)− 1

2βM~Ω

]. (138)

Next, we employ the following definitions

F ≡ −kBT ln (Z) , (139)

S ≡ −∂F

∂T, (140)

U ≡ kBT2 ∂

∂TlnZ, (141)

Cv ≡ ∂U

∂T. (142)

to derive the Helmholtz free energy, entropy, internal energy and specific heat functions, respectively. In high-temperature region, we find the Helmholtz free energy function as

F = −kBT ln

Mc2

2~Ω

√1− β (Mc)2

[(kBT

Mc2

)2

+ 6

(β (Mc)2

β (Mc)2 − 1

)(kBT

Mc2

)4]

−[√

1− β (Mc)2 (

1− y20,0)− 1

2βM~Ω

], (143)

14

the entropy function as

S = kB ln

Mc2

2~Ω

√1− β (Mc)2

[(kBT

Mc2

)2

+ 6

(β (Mc)2

β (Mc)2 − 1

)(kBT

Mc2

)4]−[√

1− β (Mc)2 (

1− y20,0)− 1

2βM~Ω

]

+

kBMc2

~Ω√

1−β(Mc)2

[(kBTMc2

)2+ 12

(β(Mc)2

β(Mc)2−1

) (kBTMc2

)4]

Mc2

2~Ω√

1−β(Mc)2

[(kBTMc2

)2+ 6

(β(Mc)2

β(Mc)2−1

) (kBTMc2

)4]−[√

1−β(Mc)2(1−y2

0,0)−1

2βM~Ω

] , (144)

the internal energy function as

U =

2kBT

[(kBTMc2

)2+ 12

(β(Mc)2

β(Mc)2−1

) (kBTMc2

)4]

[(kBTMc2

)2+ 6

(β(Mc)2

β(Mc)2−1

) (kBTMc2

)4]−[(√

1−β(Mc)2)(√

1−β(Mc)2(1−y2

0,0)−1)

β(Mc)2

] , (145)

and the specific heat function as

Cv =

6kB

[(kBTMc2

)2+ 20

(β(Mc)2

β(Mc)2−1

) (kBTMc2

)4]

[(kBTMc2

)2+ 6

(β(Mc)2

β(Mc)2−1

) (kBTMc2

)4]−[(√

1−β(Mc)2)(√

1−β(Mc)2(1−y2

0,0)−1)

β(Mc)2

]

−4kB

[(kBTMc2

)2+ 12

(β(Mc)2

β(Mc)2−1

) (kBTMc2

)4]2

[((kBTMc2

)2+ 6

(β(Mc)2

β(Mc)2−1

) (kBTMc2

)4)

−((√

1−β(Mc)2)(√

1−β(Mc)2(1−y2

0,0)−1)

β(Mc)2

)]2 . (146)

Note that, in the OQM limit where β = 0, these functions reduce to

Z =Mc2

2~Ω

(kBT

Mc2

)2

+1

2

(ω

Ω− 1

), (147)

F = −kBT ln

[Mc2

2~Ω

(kBT

Mc2

)2

+1

2

(ω

Ω− 1

)], (148)

S = kB

ln

[Mc2

2~Ω

(kBT

Mc2

)2

+1

2

(ω

Ω− 1

)]+ 2

1−

(ωΩ − 1

)

[Mc2

~Ω

(kBTMc2

)2

+

(ωΩ − 1

)]

, (149)

U = 2kBT

1−

(ωΩ − 1

)

Mc2

~Ω

(kBTMc2

)2+(

ωΩ − 1

)

, (150)

Cv = 2kB

1 +

(ωΩ − 1

)

Mc2

~Ω

(kBTMc2

)2+(

ωΩ − 1

)

− 2

(ωΩ − 1

)

Mc2

~Ω

(kBTMc2

)2+(

ωΩ − 1

)

2

. (151)

Furthermore, in the absence of the external magnetic field in the OQM limit we obtain the well-known thermodynamic

15

functions of a scalar bosonic oscillator [37].

Z =Mc2

2~ω

(kBT

Mc2

)2

, (152)

F = −kBT ln

[Mc2

2~Ω

(kBT

Mc2

)2], (153)

S = kB

ln

[Mc2

2~Ω

(kBT

Mc2

)2]+ 2

, (154)

U = 2kBT, (155)

Cv = 2kB. (156)

Then, we plot the thermodynamic functions versus the temperature for different values of the ML parameter bytaking M=~=c=kB=ω=1. Although ML parameter is assumed to have a small value, such as β = 0.005, we take intoaccount two other values, β = 0 and β = 0.5, to discuss the OQM and asymptotic limits. We show the thermodynamicfunctions in figs. (2), (3), (4), and (5). In each graph, we illustrate the thermal properties with three different values ofthe cyclotron frequency. To be more specific, we take ω = 0 value to investigate the case where the external magneticfield does not exist. We employ ω = ω and ω = 10ω values to represent to the weak and strong external magneticfields, respectively.In all thermodynamic functions, we observe a critical value of the temperature, Tc, where the thermal behaviors

alter. This critical value depends on the β and ω parameters and can be calculated from the roots of Eq. (138).Below this critical temperature, in the 0 < T < Tc interval, the usual and well-know thermal behaviors are beingviolated. This can be seen as evidence of an existing fundamental low limit to measure the temperature. However,when β = 0, it is still possible to define a lower limit to the temperature. We get this critical temperature out of Eq.(147) as follows.

Tc =

√~Mc2

k2B

(Ω− ω

). (157)

We note that Tc is equal to zero if and only if ω = 0. When we take ω = ω and ω = 10ω, we calculate the criticaltemperature as 0.643 and 3.008, respectively. Therefore, we conclude that the existing of a lower temperature limitvalue is associated with the Euler-MacLaurin approximation which is employed in our solution. In the literature, itis noted that the Euler-MacLaurin approximation is appropriate for high-temperatures [54] and the low-temperaturebehaviors can be examined by adopting the method based on the Hurwitz zeta function [55].Among the thermoynamic functions, first we examine the Helmholtz free energy. Before we proceed with the high-

temperature behavior, we present the low-temperature behavior in Fig. (1) to illustrate the anomalies. The observedsingularities around the Tc ≈ 0.6 and Tc ≈ 3.0 values confirm our prediction. Then, in Fig. (2) we demonstratethe Helmholtz free energy with a high-temperature range. We observe that all curves decrease monotonically viathe temperature. Moreover, in larger ML parameters, the decreases in the Helmholtz free energy increase with equaltemperature increases. For a fixed value of the temperature greater than the critical temperature, Helmholtz freeenergy has a higher value for the stronger external magnetic field.Second, we investigate the entropy function. Although, we illustrate the entropy function together with low and

high-temperature ranges in Fig. (3), we interpret high-temperature behaviors. We observe a rapid change in entropyfollowing the critical temperature value. Then, the entropy functions start to grow more slowly. For a fixed value ofhigh temperature, in all cases, we observe the entropy function has a smaller value for higher external magnetic fieldvalues.Next, we analyze the internal energy function of the system and present them in Fig. (4). In the QOM limit when

the external magnetic field does not exist, we observe a linear mean energy function as is envisaged in Eq. (155).Moreover, in the same limit, near the vicinity of the critical temperature, the internal energy function decreasesrapidly, then it starts to increase like the other one. When we compare the total amount of energy increases in eachcase, we find that the β = 0 is the lowest one. Except for the β = 0.005, ω = 10ω case, we observe very similarcharacteristic behaviors in this thermal quantity.

Finally, we demonstrate the specific heat functions in Fig. (5). In the ordinary quantum mechanic limit, the specificheat function converges the half value of the other cases. We observe that the strength of the magnetic field plays arole in the peak value of the specific heat function. As the field strength increases, the peak value is obtained with asmaller value at a higher temperature.

16

VI. CONCLUSION

In this article, we studied the two dimensional DKP oscillator under an external homogeneous magnetic field in theGUP scenario. Initially, we decided to review the problem in the absence of the ML. We obtained an exact solutionin the momentum representation in the spin-zero sector and verified the solutions with the ones in the literature.Then, we examined the spin-one sector. In some papers, we have seen that the authors made an ansatz that convertsinvestigated solutions of the spin-one case equivalent to the spin-zero case’s solution. Instead of that ansatz, we solvedthe spin-one case with an alternative approach in the non-relativistic limit. Then, we revisited the DKP oscillatorproblem in the ML formalism in momentum space. We derived an analytic expression for the energy eigenvaluefunction which depends on the ML parameter. We showed that in the absence of the ML parameter, the resultsbecome identical with the OWM ones in the non-relativistic limit. Finally, we studied the thermal properties byobtaining the Helmholtz free energy, entropy, mean energy and specific heat functions in the high-temperature limit.We obtained a lower limit critical temperature value for which the Euler-MacLaurin approach starts to be valid. Weplotted the thermodynamic functions and discussed the effect of the external magnetic field on the thermal quantitiesof the DKP oscillator for values above this limit value.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We like to thank for very fruitful discussions of anonymous referees that saved us from a crucial mistake. Further-more, we are grateful to the editor who gave us enough time to reconsider the article. Moreover, we are grateful for thesupport and encouragement of Dr. M. Heddar. We thank to E. Pehlivan and E. Gumrukcuoglu for proofreading thearticle. One of the authors, BCL, was partially supported by the Turkish Science and Research Council (TUBITAK).BCL and JK are grateful to the support given by the Internal Project of Excellent Research of the Faculty of Scienceof University Kralove, “Woods-Saxon potential in quantum mechanics”.

[1] W.S. Chung, H. Hassanabadi, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 213, (2019).[2] P. Bosso, Phys. Rev. D 97, 126010, (2018).[3] P. Bosso, O. Obregon, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.06343.[4] C. Villalpando, S.K. Modak, Phys. Rev. D 100, 024054, (2019).[5] L. Xiang, Y. Ling, Y.-G. Shen, C.-Z. Liu, H.-S. He, L.-F. Xu, Ann. Phys. 396, 334 (2018).[6] S. Saghafi, K. Nozari, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys., 14, 1750164, (2017).[7] A. Kempf, J. Math. Phys. 35, 4483, (1994).[8] A. Kempf, G. Mangano, R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D 52, 1108, (1995).[9] H. Hinrichsen, A. Kempf, J. Math. Phys. 37, 2121, (1996).

[10] A. Kempf, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 30, 2093, (1997).[11] M. Merad, F. Zeroual, M. Falek, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 27, 1250080, (2012).[12] V.H. Badalov, B. Baris, K. Uzun, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 34, 1950107, (2019).[13] Y. Li, D. Zhao, Q. Wang, J. Math. Phys. 60, 041501, (2019).[14] B.C. Lutfuoglu, F. Akdeniz, O. Bayrak, J. Math. Phys. 57, 032103, (2016).[15] H. Hassanabadi, E. Maghsoodi, A.N. Ikot, S. Zarrinkamar, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2013, 923686, (2013).[16] H. Hassanabadi, Z. Molaee, S. Zarrinkamar, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2014, 459345 (2014).[17] S. Haouat, Phys. Lett. B 729, 33 (2014).[18] A. Bhat, S. Dey, M. Faizal, C.G. Hou, W. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B 770, 325, (2017).[19] B.C. Lutfuoglu, A.N. Ikot, U.S. Okorie, A.T. Ngiangia, Commun. Theor. Phys. 71, 1127, (2019).[20] B.C. Lutfuoglu, Commun. Theor. Phys. 71, 267, (2019).[21] M. Hosseini, H. Hassanabadi, S. Hassanabadi, P. Sedaghatnia, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys., 16, 1950054 (2019).[22] A. Arda, R. Sever, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 134, 29, (2019).[23] R.R.S. Oliveira, R.V. Maluf, C.A.S. Almeida Ann. Phys. 400, 1, (2019).[24] O. Yesiltas, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 134, 331, (2019).[25] T. K. Jana, P. Roy, Phys. Lett. A 373, 1239, (2009).[26] A. Boumali, Z. Selama, Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett. 2018, 473, (2018).[27] I.L. Elviyanti, B.B. Pratiwi, A. Suparmi, C.Cari, Adv. Math. Phys. 2018, 9658679 (2018).[28] L. Menculini, O. Panella, P. Roy, Phys. Rev. D 87, 065017, (2013).[29] P. Pedram, M. Amirfakhrian, H. Shababi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 24, 1550016, (2015).[30] B. Hamil, M. Merad, Few-Body Syst. 60, 36, (2019).[31] G. Petiau. Acad. R. Belg. Cl. Sci. Mem. Collect.8, 16 (1936).[32] R. J.Duffin. Phys. Rev. 54, 1114 (1939).

17

[33] N. Kemmer. Proc. R. Soc. A 166, 127.(1938).[34] N. Kemmer. Proc. R. Soc. A 173, 91.(1939).[35] A. Boumali, L. Chetouani, H. Hassanabadi, Can. J. Phys. 91, 1, (2013).[36] M. Falek, M. Merad, J. Math Phys 51, 033516, (2010).[37] M. Falek, M. Merad, M. Moumni, J. Math. Phys. 60, 013505 (2019).[38] M. Falek, M. Merad, T. Birkandan, J. Math. Phys. 58, 023501, (2017).[39] A. Boumali, H. Aounallah, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2018, 1031763,(2018).[40] H. Aounallah, A. Boumali, Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett. 16, 195, (2019).[41] M. Hosseinpour, H. Hassanabadi, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2019, 295354, (2019).[42] B.Q. Wang, Z.W. Long, C.Y. Long, S.R. Wu, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2017, 2843020, (2017).[43] B.Q. Wang, Z.W. Long, C.Y. Long, S.R. Wu, Chin. Phys. B 27, 010301, (2018).[44] M.A. Hun, N. Candemir, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 34, 1950056, (2019).[45] J. Lunardi, J. Math. Phys. 58, 123501, (2017).[46] Y. Chargui, Phys. Lett. A 382, 949, (2018).[47] M.H. Pacheco, R.R. Landim, C.A.S. Almeida, Phys. Lett. A 311, 93, (2003).[48] M.H. Pacheco, R.V. Maluf, C.A.S. Almeida, EPL 108, 10005, (2014).[49] K. Nouicer, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39, 5125, (2006).[50] B. Hamil, M. Merad, Eur. Phys. J. Plus. 133, 174, (2018).[51] S.R. Wu, Z.W. Long, C.Y. Long, B.Q. Wang, Y. Liu, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 132, 186 (2017).[52] M. Abramowitz and I.A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions with formulas, Dover, New York (1972).[53] A. Valentim, K. Bakke, J.A. Plascak, Eur. J. Phys. 40, 045101 (2019).[54] Z. Wang, Z.W. Long, C.Y. Long, W. Zhang, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2015, 901675, (2015).[55] A. Boumali, Z. Naturforsch. A. 70, 867, (2015).

18

FIG. 1: Low temperature behavior of the Helmholtz free energy function in the OQM limit.

19

(a) β = 0

(b) β = 0.005

(c) β = 0.5

FIG. 2: The behavior of the Helmholtz free energy function of the DKP oscillator versus the reduced temperaturefor different values of the minimal length parameter.

20

(a) β = 0

(b) β = 0.005

(c) β = 0.5

FIG. 3: The behavior of the entropy function of the DKP oscillator versus the reduced temperature for differentvalues of the minimal length parameter.

21

(a) β = 0

(b) β = 0.005

(c) β = 0.5

FIG. 4: The behavior of the internal energy function of the DKP oscillator versus the reduced temperature fordifferent values of the minimal length parameter.

22

(a) β = 0

(b) β = 0.005

(c) β = 0.5

FIG. 5: The behavior of the specific heat function of the DKP oscillator versus the reduced temperature for differentvalues of the minimal length parameter.