arxiv: v1 [cond-mat.mes-hall] 28 Jun 2017

Transcription

1 Loss of adiabaticity with increasing tunneling gap in non-integrable multistate Landau-Zener models Rajesh K. Malla and M. E. Raikh Department of Physics and Astronomy, Uniersity of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84 arxi: cond-mat.mes-hall] 8 Jun 07 We consider the simplest non-integrable model of multistate Landau-Zener transition. In this model two pairs of leels in two tunnel coupled quantum dots are swept passed each other by the gate oltage. Although this model is non-integrable, it can be soled analytically in the limit when the inter-leel energy distance is much smaller than their tunnel splitting. The result is contrasted to the similar model, in which one of the dots contains only one leel. The latter model does not allow interference of the irtual transition amplitudes, and it is exactly solable. In model, the probability for a particle, residing at time t in one dot, to remain in the same dot at t falls off exponentially with tunnel coupling. By contrast, in model, this probability grows exponentially with tunnel coupling. The physical origin of this growth is the formation of the tunneling-induced collectie states in the system of two dots. This can be iewed as manifestation of the Dicke effect. PACS numbers: I. INTRODUCTION Motiations for the study of the transition probabilities between multiple intersecting leels multistate Landau- Zener transitions) were different oer different periods of time. Pioneering result for the full scattering matrix was obtained by Demko and Oshero in Ref. for a certain particular ariant of leel crossings. The paper Ref. was motiated by the research 5 on inelastic atomic collisions. Multileel description of the electron transfer in the course of the collision is required when the crossing leels are dense, so that the tunnel splitting exceeds the leel spacing. In this situation, the conentional Landau- Δ J Δ ' J a. b. FIG. : Color online) Two elementary multistate models are illustrated; a) model of tunnel-coupled dots: a single leel in the right dot is swept by two leels in the left dot with relatie elocity, ; b) model: the energy spacing,, between the leels in both dots is the same. Each leel in one dot is coupled with both leels in the other dot with coupling constant, J. J J ' ' Δ ' ' ' a. b. FIG. : Color online) Different paths of the multileel transition are illustrated for a) and b) models. Red and blue arrows illustrate the two interfering paths. Zener ) theory 6 9 deeloped for a single crossing is inapplicable. Later, the physics of multiple leel crossings had emerged in quantum optics 0, in particular, in the problem of two optical transitions, haing a common leel, in an atom drien by two laser beams. Theoretical works of this period 0 had broadened the class of exactly solable models. Also, for general mustistate models, the exact results for certain elements of the scattering matrix had been established. Finally, the motiation for the ery recent studies of the multileel transitions 7 was the ongoing experimental research on qubits manipulation by timedependent fields in relation to the information processing. In these studies 7 a number of new exactly solable models were identified, although the conclusion about their solability was drawn on the basis of numerics. The simplification, which allowed the authors of Ref. to find the scattering matrix exactly, stemmed from the assumption about the time eolution of the energy leels. Namely, it was assumed that N out of N leels eoled with the same elocity, and only one leel eoled with different elocity. Thus, the number of crossings was N. The behaior of the amplitudes to stay on a gien leel

2 at t, i.e. far away from all crossings, can be found semiclassically. The contour integral method employed in Ref. allows to establish the relations between these amplitudes at t and t. With N crossings, ) these conditions are sufficient to fix all N + 5N 0 nonzero transition probabilities. The aboe approach has been employed in all subsequent theoretical works with the exception of Refs. 5 and 8. In these two papers the transition probabilities were deried upon summation of the perturbation expansion in powers of the inter-leel coupling strengths. The fact that a gien multistate problem can be soled exactly implies that the elements of scattering matrix can be constructed from the partial probabilities, P, for indiidual pairs of intersecting leels. In other words, the time interals between the successie intersections do not enter in the result een when these interals are much smaller than the characteristic time of transition. Yet another way to express this remarkable fact is that the independent crossing approximation, alid for small tunneling gaps, remains applicable een when the gaps are much bigger than the energy separation of the neighboring crossing points. Note that, for sufficiently slow drie elocities or for big enough gaps, when the indiidual P -alues approach, the surial probability for a particle to stay on the initial leel is exponentially small. This immediately suggests that, for exactly solable integrable) models, the surial probabilities fall off exponentially with increasing the gaps. Then the question arises as to whether the aboe conclusion is alid for non-integrable models. This question is addressed in the present paper. We focus on a simple example of the electron transfer between two multileel quantum dots. Our main finding is that the surial probability can, actually, increase with increasing the tunneling gap. We relate this finding to the Dicke effect 9. The reason why the non-integrable model can be soled analytically is that, for a ery slow drie, the semiclassical approach for the time-dependent amplitudes applies een in the icinity of the transition 30,3. II. THE MODEL We start by illustrating the difference between integrable and non-integrable models using the simplest example of two quantum dots depicted in Fig. I. In Fig. Ia) there are two leels in the left dot separated by and one leel in the right dot. The left-dot leels are drien, say, by the gate oltage, with elocity /, while the right-dot leel is drien in the opposite direction with the same elocity. Both left-dot leels are coupled to the right-dot leel by the same coupling constant, J. The matrix form of the Hamiltonian is the following: t 0 J Ĥ, = 0 t J. ) J J t The eolution of the amplitudes, a t), a t), and b t), see Fig. Ia, is goerned by the Schrödinger equation ȧ i ȧ = Ĥ, a a. ) ḃ b To find the semiclassical eigenalues we substitute, a t), a t), b t) exp i ] t dt Λt ), and arrie to the C following cubic equation for Λt) Λ 3 + tλ + t + J ) Λ = t + t + J ). 3) It is easy to see that the behaior of Λt) in the units of J) as a function of the dimensionless time, t/j, is goerned by a single dimensionless parameter /J. Upon changing this parameter, the semiclassical leels eole as shown in Fig. II. For small gap, J, the leels exhibit two transitions. At critical = / J the slope of the middle leel changes the sign. Finally, for large coupling, J, the asymptotic solutions of Eq. 3) are Λ t, Λ ± t + J ) /. 4) Eq. 4) implies that in the limit, J, the middle semiclassical leel decouples from the upper and lower leels, which are gien by the conentional expressions with J replaced by / J. The power of the integrability can be now illustrated as follows. Suppose that at t = the electron is in the right dot. For large, in order to remain in the right dot at t, it should surie two transitions. Then the surial probability of each transition is gien by J Q = exp π J ). 5) In the opposite limit of strong coupling the electron undergoes a single transition. Integrability suggests that the surial probability in this limit is gien by the same formula as for the weak coupling, i.e. one should hae Q J = Q J ). 6) Indeed, substituting / J, into Eq. 5), we realize that the relation Eq. 6) holds. We now turn to non-integrable four-leel model with the Hamiltonian

3 3 ' ' ' FIG. 3: Color online) The eolution of the semiclassical leels in model a), b) and in model c), d) upon increasing the tunnel coupling. In model the two indiidual transitions eole into a single transition at big J, while the middle branch red) gets decoupled. In model the four indiidual transitions eole into the fast transition red) and slow transition blue). The leels are plotted in the units of J ersus the dimensionless time, t/j, from the solutions of Eqs. 3)a, b) and 4)c, d) for parameters /J = 0 a, c) and /J = 0.5 b, d). Vertical scale is set by the gap at t = 0: + /J in a, b), and + + /J ) in c, d). ' ' ' t 0 J J 0 t J J Ĥ, = J J + t 0 J J 0 + t. 7) In this model, there are two leels in the right dot, which are also split by, see Fig. Ib. Instead of the amplitudes a, a, b, b, it is conenient to introduce the combinations A = a + a, A = a a, 8) The equation for the semiclassical leels similar to Eq. 3) takes the form Λ t ) ] Λ + t ) ] = 4J Λ The solutions of this equation are gien by ) ] t. 4) ) ) ] / t t Λ = J + + ± J 4 +J +. 5) Our main point is that, in the limit of strong coupling, J, the solutions Eq. 5) can be classified into slow and fast, namely Λ s ± Λ f ± 4J + 4 4J + ) ] / t, 6) ) ] / t. 7) We see that, while the characteristic time for the slow solution is the conentional time, t s J/, the characteristic time for the fast solutions is t f /J, i.e. it is much shorter see also Fig. IId). This is in striking contrast with the integrable model. Unlike integrable model, the splitting enters the result een if this splitting is ery small. Such a sensitiity to the times of the leel crossings can be iewed as an indication that it is interference of the scattering paths which makes the model non-integrable. This interference is illustrated in Fig. I. It is belieed that in non-integrable models the twoleel description is not applicable. In fact, Eq. 7) suggests that the scattering process decouples into two two-leel transitions with modified gaps. From Eqs. 6) and 7) we can readily infer the surial probabilities of the slow and fast transitions: Q slow = exp π Q fast = exp π 4J 4 4J )], 8) )]. 9) B = b + b, B = b b, 9) The time eolution of A, A, B, B is goerned by the system ia t A A = 0, 0) iḃ + t B B = 0, ) ia t A JB = A, ) iḃ + t B JA = B. 3) We see that, due to smallness of the fast gap, Q fast is much bigger than Q slow, i.e. there is an anomalous surial of electron in a gien dot. In other words, due to the interference, the adiabaticity of the transition between the two dots is lifted. The aboe consideration was purely semiclassical. Thus, it applies when the probability Q fast is small. This requires that the splitting,, while smaller than J, exceeds J /J as follows from Eq. 9). In the next ) /4, section we go beyond the semiclassics and demonstrate that the condition of strong coupling, J, is sufficient for Eq. 9) to apply.

4 4 III. ANOMALOUS SURVIVAL PROBABILITY It is seen from the system Eqs. 0)-3) that the amplitude A and B, which are responsible for the fast transition, are coupled indirectly ia A and B. Respectiely, the amplitudes A and B, responsible for the slow transition, are coupled indirectly, ia A and B. The corresponding coupling constants are proportional to. On the other hand, the amplitudes A and B are coupled to each other directly with a coupling constant, J, and this coupling is much stronger. For this reason, we start with Eqs. ), 3) and express A, B ia A and B in the following way A t) X+ s t) X s t) = c + s t) B t) Y + s t) + c s t) Y s t), 0) where X s ± t) and Y s ± t) are the pairs of the linearindependent solutions of Eqs. ), 3) without the right-hand sides. In the presence of the right-hand side, in order to satisfy the system, the functions c + s, c s should obey the following conditions iċ + s X + s + iċ s X s = A, ) iċ + s Y + s + iċ s Y s = B. ) Soling the system Eqs. ), ), we find ) iċ + s = A Ys B Xs, 3) ) iċ s = B X s + A Y s +, 4) where we hae introduced the notation = X + s Y s Y + s X s, 5) so that W s has a meaning of the Wronskian, which is time-independent. Substituting Eqs. 3, 4) into Eq. 0), and then Eq. 0) into Eqs. 0), ), we arrie to the closed system of integral-differential equations for A t), B t) ia t A + i iḃ + t B i t dt K xy t, t )A t ) = i t dt K xy t, t)b t ) = i t dt K xx t, t )B t ), 6) t dt K yy t, t)a t ), 7) where the three kernels are defined as K xx t, t ) = X s + t)xs t ) Xs t)x s + t ), 8) K yy t, t ) = Y s + t)ys t ) Ys t)y s + t ), 9) K xy t, t ) = X s + t)ys t ) Xs t)y s + t ). 30) Up to now, we did not make use of the smallness of. As we had found aboe, see Eq. 7), the characteristic time of the fast transition is t f /J, so that t f J. This allows to neglect the terms ±t/ in the equations for X s, Y s, which, in turn, leads to the following solutions X s + t) = expijt), Y s + t) = expijt), 3) Xs t) = exp ijt), Ys t) = exp ijt). 3) In fact, the true asymptotic behaior of the solutions Eqs. 3), 3) contains corrections originating from the t/ terms. For example, the asymptote for X s + has the form X s + t) = expijt) + exp π 4J ) exp ijt). 33) The second term can be neglected due to the condition that the slow not fast) transition is adiabatic. Under this condition, the kernels also get greatly simplified, and acquire the form ] K xx t, t ) = i sin Jt t ), 34) ] K yy t, t ) = i sin Jt t ), 35) ] K xy t, t ) = cos Jt t ), 36) while the Wronskian assumes the alue =. The aboe expressions for X and Y apply at short times t t s J/, i.e. at times shorter than the time of slow transition. Still, t s is much bigger than t f, which allows to use the kernels Eqs. 8)-30) in the system Eqs. 6), 7). The substitution yields

5 5 ia t A + i t iḃ + t B i t dt cos Jt t ) ]A t ) = t ] dt sin Jt t ) B t ), 37) ]B t ) = t dt cos Jt t ) ] dt sin Jt t ) A t ). 38) As a next step, we argue that the kernels are rapidly oscillating functions, while A t ) and B t ) are slow functions of time. If we take them out of the integrals at t = t, then the integral in the left-hand side will turn to zero, while the integral in the right-hand side will assume the alue /J. As a result the system Eqs. 6), 7) will simplify to ia t A = J B, 39) iḃ + t B = J A. 40) The aboe system describes the conentional transition with coupling J, so that the corresponding surial probability will be gien by Eq. 9). In our deriation we did not assume that the fast transition is adiabatic. In fact, Q fast can be comparable to. Certainly, the simplification of the integrals in Eqs. 37), 38) requires justification. In the Appendix we consider this simplification in detail. IV. DISCUSSION In order to illuminate our main message, let us compare the theoretical predictions for model in two limits: J and J. In the first limit the smallness of the gap allows to obtain the transition probabilities from simple reasoning. Suppose that at t = the electron is in the state in the left dot, see Fig. I. In this situation, the surial implies that at t the electron remains in the state, i.e. it suries two transitions. The probability for this is Q = Q. If at t = the electron is in the state, then the surial probability is the sum of probabilities to remain either in the state or in the state. The first probability is Q = Q. With regard to the second probability, it should be taken into account that there are two paths from to, as illustrated in Fig. I. Corresponding amplitudes interfere with each other. If the phase difference accumulated during the time / is random, one can add the corresponding probabilities, so that Q = Q Q). The aerage with respect to the initial states) surial probability reads Q L = Q + Q + Q = Q Q Q + ). 4) Consider now the limit J. In 50 percent of realizations the electron at t is in the state a and in 50 percent of realizations it is in the state a. The slow and fast transitions take place within the states A = a +a ) and A = a a ), respectiely. Aeraging oer the initial states suggests that the t probabilities to be in the states A and A are equal. This means that the aerage surial probability is gien by Q L = { exp π ] ]} 4 4J + exp π 4J. 4) We see that for, J, the probability Eq. 4) is much bigger than Eq. 4), which seems counterintuitie. Moreoer, for J, Q L increases with increasing the tunneling, i.e. the adiabaticity of the multileel transition gets suppressed. In this paper we hae focused on a simplest example of non-integrable model, crossing of two pairs of leels in the left and in the right dots. It would be certainly interesting to establish how general is our conclusion about the anomalous surial of electron in a gien dot. We can go one step further and generalize the model to the case when two groups of N leels in the left and in the right dot cross each other. Two assumptions 3 : i) all N couplings are the same, and ii) the leels are aligned at t = 0, greatly simplify the analysis. Namely, instead of Eq. 4) we get the following generalized equation N k= ] N ] Λ + ε k t Λ + ε p= p + t = J. 43) In the limit J ε k, which we assumed throughout the paper, the structure of the solutions is the following. One solution describes the fast transition. Neglecting ε k in the denominators, we find t ) Λ slow N = ± + N J ] /. 44) The fact that Λ slow N is much bigger than ε k justifies neglecting ε k in the denominators. The corresponding surial probability is Q slow N) = exp ] πn J = Q slow ) N. 45)

6 6 This result should be contrasted to ] Q slow N) = exp πnj = Q slow ) N, 46) which emerges within the independent crossing approach and also applies to the integrable models. Indeed, to enforce integrability in a multileel model, see e.g. Ref. 7 a portion of tunnel couplings should be set to be zero. The other N solutions of Eq. 43) describe the fast transitions. The alues of Λ for these solutions are close to the alues, Λ N N, for which the sum, Λ + k= ε k ), passes through zero. This emphasizes the role of interference in the formation of the fast transitions. Indeed, the eigenector, corresponding to a gien Λ n, is composed of many leels. If all ε k reside in the interal, then the estimate for Λ n is also, which is much smaller than J. To find corresponding surial probabilities we expand Eq. 43) near Λ n. The linear terms proportional to t/ get canceled out and we obtain Λ Λ ) ) t n = J N k= ]. 47) Λ n+ε k ) From here we find that the surial probability corresponding to a gien Λ n { } Q fast N) = exp π N ]. 48) J Λ k= n+ε k ) All the terms in the sum, Λ n + ε k ), are positie, k and the alue of the sum is determined only by the leels ε k closest to Λ n. The distance between these leels ) is. N /N). Thus, the sum can be estimated as Finally, within a numerical factor in the exponent, we hae { Q fast N) = exp π 4 N 4 J }. 49) We conclude that, for the fast transitions, the surial probability grows rapidly with N. To explain qualitatiely the loss of adiabaticity with increasing the tunneling gap we draw the analogy between this effect and the Dicke effect 9 well known in optics. If two emitters are separated by the distance much smaller than the emitted waelength, the radiation lifetime of the pair increases drastically. This is because the two eigenmodes of the oscillating emitters are the symmetric and antisymmetric combinations of the indiidual oscillations. The antisymmetric mode weakly oerlaps with the emission field. Hence the long lifetime. In the model we considered, due to tunneling, the correct eigenstates of, say, the left dot are also A = a + a ) and A = a a ). The gap for A is twice the gap in the indiidual transition, while the gap for A is suppressed and decreases with J. This is the origin of the anomalous surial. The bigger is the number of leels in each dot, the less strict is the requirement that all tunnel couplings are the same. 3 V. CONCLUDING REMARKS i) It is common to judge on whether or not the system with many degrees of freedom is integrable basing on numerically generated leel statistics in a limited spectral interal, see e.g. Ref. 33. If the statistics is Poissonian, the system can be decoupled into indiidual blocks which do not interact with each other. This is an indication that the system is integrable. If, alternatiely, the leel statistics is Wigner-Dyson, different energy leels repel each other, suggesting that the corresponding eigenstates know about the entire system. Such a system is non-integrable. With regard to multistate models, similar approach has been employed in Refs. 6,7. If the time eolution of the semiclassical leels exhibited aoided crossings, the model was judged to be nonintegrable. Certainly, it is the interference of many partial amplitudes that is responsible for the leel repulsion in many-body systems. Similarly, in non-integrable multileel models the time eolution between two distant leel crossings allows more than one path. ii) Although the integrable models in Refs.,3 contain interfering paths, the parameters of these models are fine-tuned in such a way that interference drops out from the final results. iii) We would like to emphasize that there is no smooth transition between the integrable model Ia) and non-integrable model Ib). Een if we introduce asymmetry between the two dots by assuming that the leels in the right dot are separated by, we will not emulate the situation by taking the limit 0. The formal reason for this is that the leel degeneracy in the right dot will be lifted due to coupling of the degenerate leels ia the left dot. The width of the gap corresponding to the fast transition, with asymmetric spacings, takes the alue /J. Acknowledgements Illuminating discussion with V. L. Pokrosky and E. G. Mishchenko are gratefully acknowledged. The work was supported by the Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Grant No. DE-FG0-06ER4633. VI. APPENDIX In this Appendix we explore the assumptions leading from the system Eqs. 37 ), 38) to the system Eqs. 39),

7 7 40). We will first assume that the system Eqs. 39), 40) applies, and use it to trace the aboe assumptions. Consider the integral in the right-hand side in Eq. 38). Upon performing the integration by parts twice, it can be cast in the form t ] dt sin Jt t ) A t ) = J A t) 4J t ] dt sin Jt t A t ) ) t. 50) It is now conenient to combine the left-hand side with the term containing second deriatie in the right-hand side t ] ] dt sin Jt t ) A t ) + A t ) 4J t = J A t). 5) If the system Eqs. 39), 40) applies, the A / t can be expressed through A. into Eq. 5), we get t Substituting this expression dt sin Jt t )] { } A t ) 4 6J 4 +i 4J t ] 6J = J A t). 5) Now we see that taking A t) out of the integral amounts to keeping only the first term in the square brackets. Indeed, the second term is much smaller than by irtue of the condition J. The third term is much smaller than, since the slow transition is adiabatic. With regard to the fourth term, the characteristic t is of the order of time of the fast transition. If the fast transition is adiabatic, then t is of the order of /J, so that the fourth term is of order of the second term. If the fast transition is non-adiabatic, then t is of the order of /. In this limit the fourth term is of the order of the third term. In both cases the terms which we neglected are small. Similar consideration justifies the simplification of the other integrals. Y. N. Demko and V. I. Oshero, Stationary and nonstationary problems in quantum mechanics that can be soled by means of contour integration, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 53, ); So. Phys. JETP 65), )]. Yu. N. Demko, Detachment of electrons in slow collisions between negatie ions and atoms, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 46, 6 964); So. Phys. JETP 93), )]. 3 V. I. Oshero, Transition of electrons to a continuous spectrum, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 49, ); So. Phys. JETP 4), )]. 4 Yu. N. Demko and I. V. Komaro, Ionization in Slow two-atom Collisions, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 50, ); So. Phys. JETP 3), )]. 5 V. A. Ankudino, S. V. Bobashe, and V. I. Perel, Oscillations in the Total Cross Sections for Inelastic Processes During Atomic Collisions, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 60, ); So. Phys. JETP, 333), )]. 6 L. D. Landau, Zur theorie der energieubertragung, Physics of the Soiet Union, 46 93). 7 C. Zener, Non-adiabatic crossing of energy leels, Proc. R. Soc. London A 37, ). 8 E. Majorana, Atomi orientati in campo magnetico ariabile, Nuoo Cimento 9, 43 93). 9 E. C. G. Stueckelberg, Theorie der unelastischen Stösse zwischen atomen, Hel. Phys. Acta 5, ). 0 C. E. Carroll and F. T. Hioe, Further generalization of the Landau-Zener calculation, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B, ). Yu. N. Demko and V. N. Ostrosky, Multipath interference in a multistate Landau-Zener-type model, Phys. Re. A 6, ). S. Brundobler and V. Elser, S-matrix for generalized Landau-Zener problem, J. Phys. A 6, 993). 3 Yu. N Demko and V. N. Ostrosky, Crossing of two bands of potential cures, J. Phys. B 8, ). 4 V. N. Ostrosky and H. Nakamura, Exact analytical solution of the N-leel Landau-Zener type bow-tie model, J. Phys. A 30, ). 5 T. Usuki, Theoretical study of Landau-Zener tunneling at the M+N leel crossing, Phys. Re. B 56, ). 6 Y. N. Demko and V. N. Ostrosky, Multipath interference in a multistate Landau-Zener-type model, Phys. Re. A 6, ). 7 Y. N. Demko and V. N. Ostrosky, The exact solution of the multistate Landau-Zener type model: the generalized bow-tie model, J. Phys. B 34, 49 00). 8 N. A. Sinitsyn, Counterintuitie transitions in the multistate Landau-Zener problem with linear leel crossings, J. Phys. A 37, ). 9 A. V. Shyto, Landau-Zener transitions in a multileel system: An exact result, Phys. Re. A 70, ). 0 A. A. Rangelo, J. Piilo, and N. V. Vitano, Counterintuitie transitions between crossing energy leels, Phys. Re. A 7, ). S. Ashhab, Landau-Zener transitions in a two-leel system coupled to a finite-temperature harmonic oscillator, Phys. Re. A 90, ). N. A. Sinitsyn, Solable four-state Landau-Zener model of two interacting qubits with path interference, Phys. Re. B 9, ). 3 N. A. Sinitsyn, Exact transition probabilities in a 6-state Landau-Zener system with path interference, J. Phys. A

8 8 48, ). 4 A. Patra and E. Yuzbashyan, Quantum integrability in the multistate Landau-Zener problem, J. Phys. A 48, ). 5 S. Ashhab, Landau-Zener transitions in an open multileel quantum system, Phys. Re. A 94, ). 6 N. A. Sinitsyn, J. Lin, and V. Y. Chernyak, Constraints on scattering amplitudes in multistate Landau-Zener theory, Phys. Re. A 95, ). 7 N. A. Sinitsyn and V. Y. Chernyak, The Quest for Solable Multistate Landau-Zener Models, arxi: Y. Kayanuma and S. Fukuchi, On the probability of nonadiabatic transitions in multiple leel crossings, J. Phys. B 8, ). 9 R. H. Dicke, Coherence in Spontaneous Radiation Processes, Phys. Re. 93, ). 30 Zhu-Xi Luo and M. E. Raikh, Landau-Zener transition drien by slow noise, Phys. Re. B 95, ). 3 R. K. Malla, E. G. Mishchenko, and M. E. Raikh, Suppression of the Landau-Zener transition probability by a weak classical noise, arxi: T. V. Shahbazyan, M. E. Raikh, and Z. V. Vardeny, Mesoscopic cooperatie emission from a disordered system, Phys. Re. B 6, ). 33 D. Poilblanc, T. Ziman, J. Bellissard, F. Mila, and G. Montambaux, Poisson s. GOE Statistics in Integrable and Non-Integrable Quantum Hamiltonians, Europhys. Lett.,, ).