\section{Introduction}

We have recently derived generalized spin probability amplitudes, states and
operators and their eigenvectors [1-4]. The new quantities are more
generalized than the quantities considered most generalized hitherto in the
literature. In this paper, we show how these new results are related to the
standard results, and how the new results are used to calculate the
quantities of usual interest.

This paper is organized as outlined below. In Section $2$, we review the
standard interpretation of spin, so as to prepare the way for a comparison
with the interpretation arising from the new results. Section $3$ is devoted
to an exposition of the generalized interpretation of spin. We explain the
connection between probability amplitudes for spin projection measurements
and spin states in Section $3.1$. We give explicit forms for the spin states
in this section. In Section $3.2$, we give explicit formulas for the spin
operators and their eigenvectors. We then explain the connection between
spin states and the eigenvectors of spin operators in Section $3.3$.

Section $4$ is dedicated to the treatment of spin-projection expectation
values. Thus, the contrast between the standard and the generalized
interpretation of these expectation values is drawn in Section $4.1$. The
generalized results are presented in Section $4.2$. Section $4.3$ is a
summary of the various possibilities that arise when we compute these
expectation values by the new methods. The relation between these formulas
and the standard ones is clarified in Section $4.4$. The paper closes with a
discussion and conclusion in Section 5.

\section{Standard Interpretation of Spin}

We now briefly review the standard interpretation of spin. We shall
illustrate our discussion by means of the spin-$1/2$ case. The general
results will be valid for other values of spin.

Let the spin be measured in units of $\hbar /2.$ Therefore, the $z$
component of spin is given by the Pauli matrix

\begin{equation}
\lbrack \sigma _z]=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1
\end{array}
\right) ,  \label{one}
\end{equation}
whose eigenvectors are

\begin{equation}
\lbrack \xi _{+}]=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
a_{+} \\
b_{+}
\end{array}
\right) =\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
0
\end{array}
\right) \text{ and }[\xi _{-}]=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
a_{-} \\
b_{-}
\end{array}
\right) =\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
1
\end{array}
\right)  \label{two}
\end{equation}
The spin states, which we denote by $[\psi _{\pm }],$ are of the same form
and are
\begin{equation}
\lbrack \psi _{+}]=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
0
\end{array}
\right) \text{ and }[\psi _{-}]=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
1
\end{array}
\right)  \label{twoa}
\end{equation}
for eigenvalues $+1$ and $-1$ respectively. In the state $[\psi _{+}]$, the
probability of finding the spin to be ''up'' upon measurement is $\left|
a_{+}\right| ^2=1$, while the probability of finding it to be ''down'' is $%
\left| b_{+}\right| ^2=0.$ Similarly, in the state $[\psi _{-}],$ the
probability of finding the spin to be ''up'' upon measurement is $\left|
a_{-}\right| ^2=0$, while the probability of finding it to be ''down'' is $%
\left| b_{-}\right| ^2=1.$

The spin vector is
\begin{equation}
\lbrack \mathbf{\sigma ]}=\widehat{\mathbf{i}}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0
\end{array}
\right) +\widehat{\mathbf{j}}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -i \\
i & 0
\end{array}
\right) +\widehat{\mathbf{k}}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1
\end{array}
\right) .  \label{four}
\end{equation}
Hence the component of spin in the direction of the unit vector $\widehat{%
\mathbf{n}}$ whose polar angles are $(\theta ,\varphi )$ is

\begin{equation}
\lbrack \mathbf{\sigma }_{\widehat{\mathbf{n}}}]=\widehat{\mathbf{n}}\cdot [%
\mathbf{\sigma ]=}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos \theta & \sin \theta e^{-i\varphi } \\
\sin \theta e^{i\varphi } & -\cos \theta
\end{array}
\right) .  \label{three}
\end{equation}
The eigenvectors of this operator are
\begin{equation}
\lbrack \xi _{+}]=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
a_{+} \\
b_{+}
\end{array}
\right) =\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\cos \frac \theta 2 \\
\sin \frac \theta 2e^{i\varphi }
\end{array}
\right) \text{ }  \label{fivex}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\text{ }[\xi _{-}]=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
a_{-} \\
b_{-}
\end{array}
\right) =\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\sin \frac \theta 2 \\
-\cos \frac \theta 2e^{i\varphi }
\end{array}
\right)  \label{fivey}
\end{equation}
for eigenvalues $+1$ and $-1$ respectively.

In the literature, Eqns. (\ref{three})-(\ref{fivey}) are given as
representing the most general description of spin $[5]$. We shall therefore
call them the ''standard generalized quantities''. Since the form of the
spin states is the same as the form of the eigenvectors, the ''up'' spin
state is

\begin{equation}
\lbrack \psi _{+}]=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\cos \frac \theta 2 \\
\sin \frac \theta 2e^{i\varphi }
\end{array}
\right) \text{ }  \label{fiveb}
\end{equation}
while the ''down'' state is
\begin{equation}
\text{ }[\psi _{-}]=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\sin \frac \theta 2 \\
-\cos \frac \theta 2e^{i\varphi }
\end{array}
\right) .  \label{fivec}
\end{equation}

If the spin state is $[\psi _{+}],$ then the probability of finding the spin
to be ''up'' upon measurement is $\left| a_{+}\right| ^2=\cos ^2\theta /2$,
while that of finding it to be ''down'' is $\left| b_{+}\right| ^2=\sin
^2\theta /2.$ By the same token, if the spin state is $[\psi _{-}],$ then
the probability of finding the spin to be ''up'' upon measurement is $\left|
a_{-}\right| ^2=\sin ^2\theta /2$, while that of finding it to be ''down''
is $\left| b_{-}\right| ^2=\cos ^2\theta /2.$

The expectation value of the spin projection is

\begin{equation}
\left\langle \sigma _z\right\rangle _{\pm }=[\psi _{\pm }]^{\dagger }[\sigma
_z][\psi _{\pm }].  \label{fived}
\end{equation}
Using the Pauli spin operator and spin states Eqn. (\ref{twoa}), the
expectation value of the spin projection is found to be
\begin{equation}
\left\langle \sigma _z\right\rangle _{\pm }=\pm 1.  \label{fivee}
\end{equation}
The same results are obtained if the standard generalized operator Eqn. (\ref
{three}) and standard generalized states Eqns. (\ref{fiveb}) and (\ref{fivec}%
) are used in Eqn. (\ref{fived}) to compute this quantity.

In order to obtain more generalized expectation values, we must in Eqn. (\ref
{fived}) use the Pauli spin states, Eqn. (\ref{twoa}), and the standard
generalized operator Eqn. (\ref{three}). Alternatively, we can use the
generalized spin states Eqns. (\ref{fiveb}) and (\ref{fivec}) with the Pauli
operator Eqn. (\ref{one}). In either case, the expectation value is
\begin{equation}
\left\langle \sigma _z\right\rangle _{\pm }=\pm \cos \theta  \label{fivef}
\end{equation}

These are the standard results for the expectation values. We shall
elucidate them further when we have presented the generalized results.

\section{Generalized Interpretation}

\subsection{Probability Amplitudes and Spin States}

The generalized interpretation is inspired by the approach to quantum
mechanics due to Land\'e $[6-9]$. In this approach, we characterize spin
projection measurements by probability amplitudes describing the
measurements. Let the unit vector $\widehat{\mathbf{a}}$ with polar angles $%
(\theta ,\varphi )$ determine the initial direction of the spin projection,
so that before the current measurement the projection is up or down with
respect to this direction. Let the unit vector $\widehat{\mathbf{c}}$ with
polar angles $(\theta ^{\prime },\varphi ^{\prime })$ be the new direction
in which we seek the spin projection. If the spin projection is initially up
with respect to $\widehat{\mathbf{a}},$a measurement along $\widehat{\mathbf{%
c}}$ will give projections up or down with respect to $\widehat{\mathbf{c}}$
with respective probability amplitudes $\psi (m_i^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}}%
)};m_f^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})$ where we have labelled the spin states by
their magnetic quantum numbers and the corresponding direction of
quantization. The subscripts $i$ and $f$ refer to initial and final
respectively. The explicit expressions for these probability amplitudes
depend on the choice of phase; there are many such choices $[4]$. For spin
1/2, one choice gives the following $[1,2]$ expressions:
\begin{equation}
\psi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}}%
)})=\cos \frac \theta 2\cos \frac{\theta ^{\prime }}2+e^{i(\varphi -\varphi
^{\prime })}\sin \frac \theta 2\sin \frac{\theta ^{\prime }}2,  \label{six}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\psi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}}%
)})=\cos \frac \theta 2\sin \frac{\theta ^{\prime }}2-e^{i(\varphi -\varphi
^{\prime })}\sin \frac \theta 2\cos \frac{\theta ^{\prime }}2,  \label{seven}
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}
\psi ((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}}%
)})=\sin \frac \theta 2\cos \frac{\theta ^{\prime }}2-e^{i(\varphi -\varphi
^{\prime })}\cos \frac \theta 2\sin \frac{\theta ^{\prime }}2  \label{eight}
\end{equation}
and

\begin{equation}
\psi ((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}}%
)})=\sin \frac \theta 2\sin \frac{\theta ^{\prime }}2+e^{i(\varphi -\varphi
^{\prime })}\cos \frac \theta 2\cos \frac{\theta ^{\prime }}2.  \label{nine}
\end{equation}

The principle that measurements should be reproducible means that if we
repeat a measurement, the same value should be obtained with certainty. That
means that if we set $\widehat{\mathbf{c}}=\widehat{\mathbf{a}}$, we should
find that
\begin{equation}
\psi ((\pm \frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(\pm \frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{a}})})=1  \label{ninea}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\psi ((\pm \frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(\mp \frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{a}})})=0.  \label{nineb}
\end{equation}
These probability amplitudes do indeed satisfy these conditions.

According to the Land\'e approach, each one of the probability amplitudes
Eqns. (\ref{six}) - (\ref{nine}) can be expanded according to the example
below for $\psi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{c}})})$ $[1]$:

\begin{eqnarray}
\psi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}}%
)}) &=&\chi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{b}})})\phi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{b}})};(+\frac 12)^{(%
\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})  \nonumber \\
&&+\chi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{%
b}})})\phi ((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{b}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{c}})}).  \label{ten}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\widehat{\mathbf{b}}$, whose polar angles are $(\theta ^{\prime \prime
},\varphi ^{\prime \prime }),$ is another vector with respect to which we
can measure the spin projection. The $\chi $'s are probability amplitudes
for measurements from the direction $\widehat{\mathbf{a}}$ to the direction $%
\widehat{\mathbf{b}}$ and the $\phi $'s are probability amplitudes for
measurements from the direction $\widehat{\mathbf{b}}$ to the direction $%
\widehat{\mathbf{c}}$. Therefore in the basis $\phi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{b}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})$ and $\phi ((-\frac
12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{b}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})$, the
probability amplitude $\psi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac
12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})$ is represented by the vector

\begin{equation}
\lbrack \psi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{c}})})]=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\chi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{b}}%
)}) \\
\chi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{b}}%
)})
\end{array}
\right) .  \label{el11}
\end{equation}
Using the expressions Eqns. (\ref{six}) - (\ref{nine}) for the probability
amplitudes, we deduce that the generalized spin state $[\psi ((+\frac 12)^{(%
\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})]$ has the form
[1]

\begin{eqnarray}
\lbrack \psi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{c}})})] &=&\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\cos \frac \theta 2\cos \frac{\theta ^{\prime \prime }}2+e^{i(\varphi
-\varphi ^{\prime \prime })}\sin \frac \theta 2\sin \frac{\theta ^{\prime
\prime }}2 \\
\cos \frac \theta 2\sin \frac{\theta ^{\prime \prime }}2-e^{i(\varphi
-\varphi ^{\prime \prime })}\sin \frac \theta 2\cos \frac{\theta ^{\prime
\prime }}2
\end{array}
\right)  \nonumber \\[0.01in]
&=&[\psi (+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})}].  \label{tw12}
\end{eqnarray}

The expansions for the other probability amplitudes show that

\begin{equation}
\lbrack \psi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{c}})})]=[\psi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(%
\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})]  \label{th13}
\end{equation}
and

\begin{eqnarray}
\lbrack \psi ((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{c}})})] &=&[\psi ((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(%
\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})]  \nonumber \\
&=&\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\sin \frac \theta 2\cos \frac{\theta ^{\prime \prime }}2-e^{i(\varphi
-\varphi ^{\prime \prime })}\cos \frac \theta 2\sin \frac{\theta ^{\prime
\prime }}2 \\
\sin \frac \theta 2\sin \frac{\theta ^{\prime \prime }}2+e^{i(\varphi
-\varphi ^{\prime \prime })}\cos \frac \theta 2\cos \frac{\theta ^{\prime
\prime }}2
\end{array}
\right)  \nonumber \\
&=&[\psi (-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})}].  \label{fo14}
\end{eqnarray}

We observe that owing to the fact that the quantities $\psi ,$ $\chi $ and $%
\phi $ have exactly the same structure, we can as well use one symbol $\chi $
to represent them in the expansion Eqn. (\ref{ten}).

\subsection{Spin Operators}

The most general form of the ''$z$ component'' of the spin operator is $%
[\sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}}]$, defined with respect to the direction $%
\widehat{\mathbf{c}},$ and is

\begin{equation}
\lbrack \sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}}]=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
(\sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}})_{11} & (\sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}})_{12}
\\
(\sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}})_{21} & (\sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}})_{22}
\end{array}
\right) .  \label{fi15}
\end{equation}

Here, the unit vectors $\widehat{\mathbf{c}}$ and $\widehat{\mathbf{b}}$
have the polar angles $(\theta ^{\prime },\varphi ^{\prime })$ and $(\theta
^{\prime \prime },\varphi ^{\prime \prime })$ respectively. The elements of $%
[\sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}}]$ are $[1]$
\begin{equation}
(\sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}})_{11}=\cos \theta ^{\prime \prime }\cos
\theta ^{\prime }+\sin \theta ^{\prime \prime }\sin \theta ^{\prime }\cos
(\varphi ^{\prime \prime }-\varphi ^{\prime }),  \label{si16}
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}
(\sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}})_{12}=\sin \theta ^{\prime \prime }\cos
\theta ^{\prime }-\sin \theta ^{\prime \prime }\cos \theta ^{\prime }-\sin
\theta ^{\prime }[\cos \theta ^{\prime \prime }\cos (\varphi ^{\prime \prime
}-\varphi ^{\prime })+i\sin (\varphi ^{\prime \prime }-\varphi ^{\prime })],
\label{se17}
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}
(\sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}})_{21}=\sin \theta ^{\prime \prime }\cos
\theta ^{\prime }-\sin \theta ^{\prime \prime }\cos \theta ^{\prime }-\sin
\theta ^{\prime }[\cos \theta ^{\prime \prime }\cos (\varphi ^{\prime \prime
}-\varphi ^{\prime })-i\sin (\varphi ^{\prime \prime }-\varphi ^{\prime })]
\label{ei18}
\end{equation}
and

\begin{equation}
(\sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}})_{11}=-\cos \theta ^{\prime \prime }\cos
\theta ^{\prime }-\sin \theta ^{\prime \prime }\sin \theta ^{\prime }\cos
(\varphi ^{\prime \prime }-\varphi ^{\prime }).  \label{ni19}
\end{equation}

The eigenvectors of this operator are $[1]$

\begin{equation}
\lbrack \xi _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}}^{(+1)}]=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\chi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{b}}%
)}) \\
\chi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}})};(-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{b}}%
)})
\end{array}
\right) =\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\cos \frac{\theta ^{\prime }}2\cos \frac{\theta ^{\prime \prime }}%
2+e^{i(\varphi ^{\prime }-\varphi ^{\prime \prime })}\sin \frac{\theta
^{\prime }}2\sin \frac{\theta ^{\prime \prime }}2 \\
\cos \frac{\theta ^{\prime }}2\sin \frac{\theta ^{\prime \prime }}%
2-e^{i(\varphi ^{\prime }-\varphi ^{\prime \prime })}\sin \frac{\theta
^{\prime }}2\cos \frac{\theta ^{\prime \prime }}2
\end{array}
\right)  \label{tw20}
\end{equation}
for eigenvalue $+1$ and
\begin{equation}
\lbrack \xi _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}}^{(-1)}]=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\chi ((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{b}}%
)}) \\
\chi ((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}})};(-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{b}}%
)})
\end{array}
\right) =\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\sin \frac{\theta ^{\prime }}2\cos \frac{\theta ^{\prime \prime }}%
2-e^{i(\varphi ^{\prime }-\varphi ^{\prime \prime })}\cos \frac{\theta
^{\prime }}2\sin \frac{\theta ^{\prime \prime }}2 \\
\sin \frac{\theta ^{\prime }}2\sin \frac{\theta ^{\prime \prime }}%
2+e^{i(\varphi ^{\prime }-\varphi ^{\prime \prime })}\cos \frac{\theta
^{\prime }}2\cos \frac{\theta ^{\prime \prime }}2
\end{array}
\right)  \label{tw21}
\end{equation}
for eigenvalue $-1$.

In order to obtain the standard generalized forms Eqns. (\ref{fivex}) and (%
\ref{fivey}) from these formulas, we only need to set $\theta ^{\prime
\prime }=0$, and $\varphi ^{\prime \prime }=\pi .$ Thus, the standard
generalized forms are a special case of the generalized forms.

\subsection{Spin States and Eigenvectors}

The matrix state of a wave function is obtained by first expanding the wave
function in terms of a complete set. When the expansion coefficients are
arranged in a column or row vector, they form the matrix state of the wave
function. This is what we have done to obtain the generalized states and
operators from a probability amplitude basis.

In standard quantum mechanics, the expansion coefficients are viewed as
probability amplitudes which are constants. But if we use the Land\'e
formula $[6-9]$ to perform the expansion, then we straight away recognize
that the expansion coefficients are probability amplitudes with a structure.
This insight allows us to deduce the eigenvectors of the generalized spin
operator without any calculation $[1-4]$.

Spin states and spin eigenvectors have the same structure. Both are each
characterized by two reference directions. In addition, the spin operators
are also characterized by being functions of two reference directions. But
the difference between spin states and spin eigenvectors is this. The
eigenvectors have the same reference directions as the operator they are
eigenfunctions of. But the spin states in the general case have at least one
reference vector different from those characterizing the operator.

\section{Expectation Values}

\subsection{Standard Generalized and Generalized Results}

The standard way of talking about spin concentrates on the current
measurement to the exclusion of the measurement that brought about the spin
state that obtains prior to the current measurement. Thus, this way of
talking implicitly ignores the original direction of the spin projection.
This failure to explicitly mention the precise state that obtains before the
current measurement derives from the belief that in many cases, a quantum
system is in a superposition state before a measurement is made. In such a
state, certain properties of the system are undefined.

In the present formalism, however, the spin state is always well defined.
Probability amplitudes always involve an index or label corresponding to the
state that pertains before the current measurement, and then another
characterizing the state brought about by this measurement. Therefore spin
states are characterized by four angles: one pair of angles defines the
direction of the initial reference vector, while the other pair describes
the direction of the final reference vector. When spin states involve only
two of the angles, as in the standard prescription, then, as we shall
explain later, we are dealing with a special instance of the general case.

\subsection{Generalized Results}

We now proceed to give the general treatment of spin expectation values $[1]$%
. Let the spin projection be initially $m_i$ with respect to $\widehat{%
\mathbf{a}}$. It is then measured with respect to the vector $\widehat{%
\mathbf{c}}$. Its value is found to be $m_f^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}}\mathbf{)}%
}.$ Here $m_1^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}}\mathbf{)}}=m_1^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}}%
\mathbf{)}}=+1$, and $m_2^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}}\mathbf{)}}=m_2^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{c}}\mathbf{)}}=-1.$ Since the probability amplitude for obtaining $%
+1 $ is $\psi (m_i^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}%
})})$, and that for obtaining $-1$ is $\psi (m_i^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}}%
)};(-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})$, the expectation value of the spin
projection, which we shall denote by $\left\langle \sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{%
c}}}\right\rangle ,$ is

\begin{eqnarray}
\left\langle \sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}}\right\rangle &=&\psi ^{*}(m_i^{(%
\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})\psi (m_i^{(%
\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})(+1)  \nonumber
\\
&&\ +\psi ^{*}(m_i^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}%
})})\psi (m_i^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}}%
)})(-1).  \label{tw22}
\end{eqnarray}

We now expand both $\psi (m_i^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(%
\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})$ and $\psi (m_i^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac
12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})$ as in Eqn. (\ref{ten}). We find that [$1$]

\begin{eqnarray}
\left\langle \sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}}\right\rangle =[\psi (m_i^{(%
\widehat{\mathbf{a}})})]^{\dagger }\left[ \sigma _z\right] [\psi (m_i^{(%
\widehat{\mathbf{a}})})],  \label{tw25}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\lbrack \psi (m_i^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})})]=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\chi (m_i^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{b}})}) \\
\chi ((m_i^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{b}})})
\end{array}
\right)  \label{tw26}
\end{equation}
and the elements of $[\sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}}]$ are

\begin{equation}
(\sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}})_{11}=\left| \phi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{b}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})\right| ^2-\left| \phi
((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{b}})};(-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}}%
)})\right| ^2,  \label{tw29}
\end{equation}

\begin{eqnarray}
(\sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}})_{12} &=&\phi ^{*}((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{b}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})\phi ((-\frac 12)^{(%
\widehat{\mathbf{b}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})  \nonumber \\
&&-\phi ^{*}((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{b}})};(-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{c}})})\phi ((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{b}})};(-\frac 12)^{(%
\widehat{\mathbf{c}})}),  \label{th30}
\end{eqnarray}

\begin{eqnarray}
(\sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}})_{21} &=&\phi ^{*}((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{b}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})\phi ((+\frac 12)^{(%
\widehat{\mathbf{b}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})  \nonumber \\
&&-\phi ^{*}((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{b}})};(-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{c}})})\phi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{b}})};(-\frac 12)^{(%
\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})  \label{th31}
\end{eqnarray}
and

\begin{equation}
(\sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}})_{22}=\left| \phi ((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{b}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})\right| ^2-\left| \phi
((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{b}})};(-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}}%
)})\right| ^2.  \label{th32}
\end{equation}

As has already been pointed out, the vector $\widehat{\mathbf{b}}$ is
arbitrary. Therefore, depending on the choice of $\widehat{\mathbf{b}}$, the
state, Eqns. (\ref{tw26}), and the operator, Eqn. (\ref{tw28}) take
different forms. Further variation results from whether $\widehat{\mathbf{c}}
$ equals $\widehat{\mathbf{a}}$ or not. We expect to find among these
various forms the specialized ones that correspond to the standard results.
The full complement of various cases is as given below.

\subsection{\textbf{Summary of Possibilities for the Reference Vectors}}

\subsubsection{\textbf{Case (a)}: $\widehat{\mathbf{b}}\neq \widehat{\mathbf{%
a}}$ and $\widehat{\mathbf{c}}\neq \widehat{\mathbf{a}}$.}

This is the most general case. In this case, the matrix representations are
\begin{equation}
\lbrack \psi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{c}})})]=[\psi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(%
\widehat{\mathbf{c}})}))]=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\chi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{b}}%
)}) \\
\chi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{b}}%
)})
\end{array}
\right)  \label{th33}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\lbrack \psi ((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{c}})}))]=[\psi ((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(%
\widehat{\mathbf{c}})}))]=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\chi ((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{b}}%
)}) \\
\chi ((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{b}}%
)})
\end{array}
\right) ,  \label{th34}
\end{equation}
while the operator $\left[ \sigma _z\right] $ has the elements given by
Eqns. (\ref{tw29}) - (\ref{th32}).

\subsubsection{\textbf{Case (b)}: $\widehat{\mathbf{b}}=\widehat{\mathbf{a}}%
. $}

The matrix representations are
\begin{equation}
\lbrack \psi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(\pm \frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{c}})})]=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
0
\end{array}
\right)  \label{th35}
\end{equation}
and

\begin{equation}
\lbrack \psi ((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(\pm \frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{c}})})]=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
1
\end{array}
\right) ,  \label{th36}
\end{equation}
while the elements of $[\sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}}]$ are
\begin{equation}
(\sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}})_{11}=\left| \phi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})\right| ^2-\left| \phi
((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}}%
)})\right| ^2,  \label{th37}
\end{equation}

\begin{eqnarray}
(\sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}})_{12} &=&\phi ^{*}((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})\phi ((-\frac 12)^{(%
\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})  \nonumber \\
&&\ -\phi ^{*}((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{c}})})\phi ((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(%
\widehat{\mathbf{c}})}),  \label{th38}
\end{eqnarray}

\begin{eqnarray}
(\sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}})_{21} &=&\phi ^{*}((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})\phi ((+\frac 12)^{(%
\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})  \nonumber \\
&&\ -\phi ^{*}((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{c}})})\phi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(%
\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})  \label{th39}
\end{eqnarray}
and

\begin{equation}
(\sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}})_{22}=\left| \phi ((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})\right| ^2-\left| \phi
((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}}%
)})\right| ^2.  \label{fo40}
\end{equation}

\subsubsection{\textbf{Case (c)}: $\widehat{\mathbf{b}}=\widehat{\mathbf{c}}%
. $}

The matrix representations are
\begin{equation}
\lbrack \psi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{c}})})]=[\psi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(%
\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})]=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\chi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}}%
)}) \\
\chi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}}%
)})
\end{array}
\right)  \label{fo41}
\end{equation}
and

\begin{equation}
\lbrack \psi ((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{c}})})]=[\psi ((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(%
\widehat{\mathbf{c}})})]=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\chi ((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}}%
)}) \\
\chi ((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{c}}%
)})
\end{array}
\right) ,  \label{fo42}
\end{equation}
while the operator is

\begin{equation}
\lbrack \sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}}]=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1
\end{array}
\right) .  \label{fo43}
\end{equation}

\subsubsection{\textbf{Case (d)}: $\widehat{\mathbf{c}}=\widehat{\mathbf{a}}$%
.}

The matrix representations are

\begin{equation}
\lbrack \psi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{a}})})]=[\psi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(%
\widehat{\mathbf{a}})})]=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\chi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{b}}%
)}) \\
\chi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{b}}%
)})
\end{array}
\right)  \label{fo44}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\lbrack \psi ((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{a}})})]=[\psi ((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(%
\widehat{\mathbf{a}})})]=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\chi ((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{b}}%
)}) \\
\chi ((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{b}}%
)})
\end{array}
\right) ,  \label{fo45}
\end{equation}
while the elements of $[\sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}}]$ are given by Eqns. (%
\ref{tw29}) - (\ref{th32}).

\subsubsection{\textbf{Case (e}): $\widehat{\mathbf{b}}=\widehat{\mathbf{a}}$
and $\widehat{\mathbf{c}}=\widehat{\mathbf{a}}$.}

The matrix representations are

\begin{equation}
\lbrack \psi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{a}})})]=[\psi ((+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(%
\widehat{\mathbf{a}})})]=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
0
\end{array}
\right)  \label{fo46}
\end{equation}
and

\begin{equation}
\lbrack \psi ((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(+\frac 12)^{(\widehat{%
\mathbf{a}})})]=[\psi ((-\frac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})};(-\frac 12)^{(%
\widehat{\mathbf{a}})})]=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
1
\end{array}
\right) ,  \label{fo47}
\end{equation}
while the operator is

\begin{equation}
\lbrack \sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}}]=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1
\end{array}
\right) .  \label{fo48}
\end{equation}

\subsection{Comparison With Standard Results}

As Eqns. (\ref{three}) - (\ref{fivey}) show, the generalized standard forms
of the various quantities explicitly involve only one direction, represented
here by the angles $(\theta ^{\prime },\varphi ^{\prime })$. There would
appear to be no case among the possibilities (a) - (e) corresponding to the
operator being a function of one direction only. But in fact, if we set $%
\theta ^{\prime \prime }=0,$ and $\varphi ^{\prime \prime }$ $=$ $\pi ,$ so
that $\widehat{\mathbf{b}}=\widehat{\mathbf{k}}$ in Case (a), we achieve
this situation. Thus, using the actual expressions for the probability
amplitudes, Eqns. (\ref{tw12}) and (\ref{fo14}), and for the elements of $%
[\sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}}],$ Eqns. (\ref{si16}) - (\ref{ni19}) we
obtain for Case (a):

\begin{equation}
\lbrack \psi ((+\tfrac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})})]=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\cos \frac \theta 2 \\
\sin \frac \theta 2e^{i\varphi }
\end{array}
\right) \text{ ,}  \label{fo49}
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}
\lbrack \psi ((-\tfrac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})})]=i\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\sin \frac \theta 2 \\
-\cos \frac \theta 2e^{i\varphi }
\end{array}
\right)  \label{fi50}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\lbrack \sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}}]\mathbf{=}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos \theta ^{\prime } & \sin \theta ^{\prime }e^{-i\varphi ^{\prime }} \\
\sin \theta ^{\prime }e^{i\varphi ^{\prime }} & -\cos \theta ^{\prime }
\end{array}
\right) ,  \label{fi51}
\end{equation}

As in this case $\widehat{\mathbf{a}}\neq \widehat{\mathbf{c}}$, using these
quantities ensures that we get the most general expectation value. In view
of this result, it is clear that the standard generalized results are just a
special case of the generalized results. This special form is here obtained
from the generalized form Eqns. (\ref{tw29}) - (\ref{th32})\ by fixing the
angles of $\widehat{\mathbf{b}}$ to $\theta ^{\prime }=0$ and $\varphi
^{\prime }=\pi .$

It is also possible using Case (b) to obtain the standard generalized
expression for the expectation value. In this case, the state is either

\begin{equation}
\lbrack \psi ((+\tfrac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})})]=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
0
\end{array}
\right) \text{ ,}  \label{fi52}
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
\lbrack \psi ((-\tfrac 12)^{(\widehat{\mathbf{a}})})]=\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
1
\end{array}
\right)  \label{fi53}
\end{equation}
while the operator is given by the elements Eqns. (\ref{si16}) - (\ref{ni19}%
); however, these elements have to be brought to those for the standard
generalized form by setting the angles of $\widehat{\mathbf{b}}=\widehat{%
\mathbf{a}}$ to $\theta =0$ and $\varphi =\pi .$ Then, the operator becomes
identical with Eqn. (\ref{three}), save for the fact that the angles are
double primed..

Similarly, Case (c) can also yield the standard results. We can get the
generalized expectation value by setting the angles of $\widehat{\mathbf{b}}=%
\widehat{\mathbf{c}}$ to $\theta ^{\prime \prime }=0$ and $\varphi ^{\prime
\prime }=\pi $ in the expressions for the states. We then obtain Eqns. (\ref
{fiveb}) and (\ref{fivec}) for the states, save for phase changes. The
operator is the Pauli operator.

What all the three methods of obtaining the standard generalized expectation
value have in common is that the vector $\widehat{\mathbf{b}}$ is set equal
to the unit vector $\widehat{\mathbf{k}}$ which defines the positive $z$
direction. All these methods give the standard generalized expectation
value. However, the form that results from Case (a) is a new form; at any
rate we have not seen it in the literature. The two forms resulting from
Cases (b) and (c) both lead to the results Eqn. (\ref{fivef}). Both these
cases take one of the reference directions for spin projection measurements
as the $z$ axis. Case (b) takes the initial direction $\widehat{\mathbf{a}}$
to equal $\widehat{\mathbf{k}}$, while Case (c) takes the final direction $%
\widehat{\mathbf{c}}$ to equal $\widehat{\mathbf{k}}$. Thus, the standard
treatment of the expectation value completely satisfies the Land\'e-approach
requirement that spin projection measurements must refer to well-defined
initial and final states.

We must mention that we have not seen any evidence that the literature
recognizes that the angular arguments of the spin state and the operator can
differ in the standard generalized expression for the expectation value.
But, considering that the standard description of spin measurements is vague
about the initial state, this is not surprising. Making these arguments
different gives a different final reference direction from the initial, thus
making the expectation value truly general.

For the case where the spin projection is measured with respect to the same
vector twice in succession, the formulas for expectation value are given by
Cases (d) and (e). These cases correspond closely to what is in the
literature. Case (e), of course, involves the standard Pauli quantities.
Both cases lead to the results Eqn. (\ref{fivee}). To correspond this case
to what the literature contains, we again have to make $\widehat{\mathbf{b}}$
correspond to the positive $z$ direction. This is accomplished by setting $%
\theta ^{\prime }=0$ and $\varphi ^{\prime }=\pi .$

If we use the generalized approach to compute the expectation value, we
confirm that
\begin{equation}
\left\langle \sigma _{\widehat{\mathbf{c}}}\right\rangle =\pm \cos \Theta ,
\label{fi54}
\end{equation}
where $\Theta $ is the angle between $\widehat{\mathbf{a}}$ and $\widehat{%
\mathbf{c}}$, so that

\begin{equation}
\cos \Theta =\widehat{\mathbf{a}}\cdot \widehat{\mathbf{c}}=\cos \theta \cos
\theta ^{\prime }+\sin \theta \sin \theta ^{\prime }\cos (\varphi -\varphi
^{\prime }).  \label{fi55}
\end{equation}

\section{Discussion and Conclusion}

In this paper, we have explained how the new generalized spin quantities we
have introduced relate to the usual quantities which we have called the
''standard generalized quantities''. We have shown how despite the seeming
difference in the two kinds of quantities, the ''standard generalized
quantities'' are special forms of the new quantities.

Our success in obtaining the spin quantities from first principles [$1-4$],
and in using them to elucidate standard ideas is strong indication that the
Land\'e approach to quantum mechanics could be fruitful if pursued logically
and applied even to seemingly well-understood results. The idea of attaching
two labels to a probability amplitude is one which seems to be of general
validity. This idea is applicable to eigenfunctions. These are just
probability amplitudes corresponding to the measurement of an observable
with a continuous eigenvalue spectrum. For an eigenfunction, the
characteristic eigenvalue defines the state that obtains before the current
measurement.

It is our belief that many more interesting results and elucidations of
standard quantum theory will be obtained by means of the Land\'e approach.

\section{References}

\textbf{1}. Mweene H. V., ''Derivation of Spin Vectors and Operators From
First Principles'', submitted to \textit{Foundations of Physics, }%
quant-ph/9905012

\textbf{2}. Mweene H. V., ''Generalized Spin-1/2 Operators and Their
Eigenvectors'', quant-ph/9906002

\textbf{3}. Mweene H. V., ''Vectors and Operators For Spin 1 Derived From
First Principles'', quant-ph/9906043

\textbf{4}. Mweene H. V., ''Alternative Forms of Generalized Vectors and
Operators for Spin 1/2'', quant-ph/9907031

\textbf{5}. Bransden and Joachain, ''Introduction to Quantum Mechanics'',
Longman Scientific \& Technical, 1989.

\textbf{6}. Land\'e A., ''From Dualism To Unity in Quantum Physics'',
Cambridge University Press, 1960.

\textbf{7}. Land\'e A., ''New Foundations of Quantum Mechanics'', Cambridge
University Press, 1965.

\textbf{8}. Land\'e A., ''Foundations of Quantum Theory,'' Yale University
Press, 1955.

\textbf{9}. Land\'e A., ''Quantum Mechanics in a New Key,'' Exposition
Press, 1973.

\end{document}


\section{Introduction}
This is the first in a series of papers intended to discuss stability of metal-poor clouds in pressure equilibrium with the quasi-hydrostatic hot gaseous corona of (proto)galaxies.
It seems that a sort of consensus exists that a state of virialized gaseous haloes located in the potential wells created mainly by the dark matter preceeded
the formation of galactic subsystems as we know them today (Gott \& Thuan 1976;
White \& Rees 1978; Rees 1978; Miyahata \& Ikeuchi 1995; Mo \& Miralda-Escud\'e 1996). In the transition from this early stage to later steps necessary for the substructure formation, the major role certainly
belonged  to the process of cooling of gas. Various cooling scenarios were proposed, but it seems clear that the onset of thermal instability in a hot, virialized plasma led to creation of a
two-phase medium, in which cold clouds are in pressure equilibrium with the ambiental,
collisionally ionized medium. Cold clouds may be photoionized by an ionizing background. In the
gravitational potential of the entire halo (i.e.\ baryonic + non-baryonic matter), cold clouds will certainly tend to fall toward the halo center.

It is important to note that these physical processes are relevant not only for unobservable
early stages of galaxy evolution, but are operational at later epochs either, as in the
Lyman-limit and metal absorption systems and, most probably, at least some of the lower column density Ly$\alpha$ forest absorbers residing in extended haloes of luminous galaxies (e.g.\
Chen et al.~1998). Thus, a related motivation for undertaking research in this direction is the possibility to account for some fraction of the observed population of high-column density QSO absorption systems (Mo \& Miralda-Escud\'e 1996).

\section{Field length in galactic-sized haloes}

The thickness of the boundary-layer where the phase transition of plasma is expected
to be close to the so-called Field length, which is determined from the balance between the thermal conduction and radiative cooling (Field 1965; Aharonson, Regev \& Shaviv 1994).
It can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{flen}
\lambda_F = \sqrt{\frac{\kappa T_h}{n_h^2 \Lambda (T_h)}},
\end{equation}
where $\kappa$ is the "classical" coefficient of thermal conduction. The cooling function for the dominant free-free cooling is calculated in detail in Sutherland \& Dopita (1993).

The temperature dependence of the coefficient of thermal conduction can be, in the regime considered, approximated as (Cowie \& McKee 1977; Kamaya 1997)
\begin{equation}
\label{flen2}
\kappa (T) = \kappa_0 T^{2.5},
\end{equation}
where the constant is given as $\kappa_0 = 5.6 \times 10^{-7}$ erg s$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$ cm$^{-1}$.
From Eqs.~(\ref{flen}) and (\ref{flen2}), explicitly taking into account the galactocentric distance of the considered cloud,  we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{flen3}
\lambda_F = \frac{7.5 \times 10^{-4}}{n_h(r)}  \sqrt{\frac{T_h^{3.5} (r)}{\Lambda[T_h(r)]}}\; {\rm cm}.
\end{equation}
We see that the Field length is estimated from the physical condition ($T_h$, $n_h$) of the {\it hot} plasma component. Its physical meaning is that the cold component will eventually evaporate
(the timescale is discussed in detail in the Cowie \& McKee [1977] paper) if its size
is smaller than $\lambda_F$. On the other hand, the hot component will tend to condense on
the cold cloud surface if its size is larger than $\lambda_F$. Now, our task is clearly formulated: to establish what is the value of $\lambda_F$ at various galactocentric distances
in a particular gaseous halo model.

The density and temperature profiles in the adiabatic model (Mo 1994; Mo \& Miralda-Escud\'e 1996) are given by
\begin{equation}
\label{density}
\rho_h(r)= \rho_h(r_c) \left( 1 - K \ln \frac{r}{r_c}  \right)^\frac{3}{2},
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{temp}
T_h(r)= T_h(r_c) \left( 1 - K \ln \frac{r}{r_c}  \right).
\end{equation}
Notation is the following: $K$ is a dimensionless constant equal to
\begin{equation}
\label{const}
K= \frac{2}{5} \frac{\mu V_c^2}{k_{\rm B} T_h(r_c)},
\end{equation}
$k_{\rm B}$ being the Boltzmann constant, $\mu$ average mass per particle, and
$T_h(r_c)$ is temperature at the cooling radius, by assumption equal to the
virial temperature: $T_h(r_c) \equiv \mu V_c^2/2k_{\rm B}$ (see Waxman \&
Miralda-Escud\'e 1995
for an interesting discussion). For a typical $V_c
\simeq 250$ km s$^{-1}$ corresponding to a $L_\ast$ galaxy, and a metallicity
$Z=0.3 \: Z_\odot$ this temperature is  $T_h(r_c)=4.89 \times 10^6$ K, and the
constant $K$ has the value $K= \frac{4}{5}$. The density at the cooling radius is
obtained by requiring the cooling time at $r_c$ to be equal (at least) to
$t_m$:
\begin{equation}
\label{svi}
\rho_h(r_c)=\frac{5 \mu k_{\rm B} T_h(r_c)}{2 \Lambda[T_h(r_c)] t_m},
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda[T_h(r_c)]$ is the cooling rate evaluated at the temperature of
hot phase at the cooling radius.

Kamaya (1997) has used a simple analytical approximation for the cooling function in the
bremsstrahlung regime (see also Lepp et al.~1985)
\begin{equation}
\label{sim1}
\Lambda (T) \approx 3.0 \times 10^{-27} T^\frac{1}{2} \; {\rm erg} \; {\rm cm}^3 \; {\rm s}^{-1}.
\end{equation}

\begin{figure}
\psfig{file=fig1.ps,height=10cm}
\caption{Comparison between analytic approximation of Kamaya (1997), represented by dashed
line, and more exact numerical
calculations of Sutherland \& Dopita (1993) for two different metallicities (solid lines) in the
framework of adiabatic halo models. Evaluation is performed at fixed galactocentric distance
of $R=100$ kpc.}
\end{figure}

In Fig.~1, we see the difference between this form of the cooling function and the more
precise numerical values of Sutherland and Dopita (1993). Cooling function for two relevant
metallicities ($0.1 \; Z_\odot$ and $0.01 \; Z_\odot$), in units of
$10^{-23}$ erg cm$^3$ s$^{-1}$, is represented by solid lines, and
analytic approximation of the eq.~(\ref{sim1}) is shown as the dashed line. The comparison
is made within framework of the adiabatic halo model (although the same applies to any
other physical situation) at the fixed distance $R=100$ kpc from the center of the halo
characterized by the circular velocity $V_{\rm cir}$. The distance of 100 kpc is chosen because
it is far enough from the region of the disk and non-stationary phenomena associated with the
disk-halo connection. Simultaneously, it lies within the virial radius for almost all
halo masses, so that the approximation of quasistationary cooling of gas can be legitimately
applied.

\begin{figure}
\psfig{file=fig2.ps,height=10cm}
\caption{Field lengths for clouds at various galactocentric distances in the adiabatic haloes for $V_{\rm cir} =220$ km s$^{-1}$ (solid line) and $V_{\rm cir} =100$ km s$^{-1}$ (dashed line).}
\end{figure}

We see that for circular velocities characteristic for masses of $L_\ast$ galaxies (like the Milky Way), the analytic expression in (\ref{sim1}) is a moderately good approximation
for low-metallicity gas. It remains good within a factor of 2 up to the largest galactic
masses (characterized by $V_{\rm cir} \:^{<}_{\sim}\: 300$ km s$^{-1}$), but tends to systematically
underestimate the cooling rate for smaller galactic haloes. This is especially pronounced
in case of dwarf galaxies ($50 \leq V_{\rm cir} \leq 100$ km s$^{-1}$), where the disagreement
is drastic.

Now we use Eq.~(\ref{flen3}) in conjunction with Eqs.~(\ref{density}) and (\ref{temp}).
The resulting Field lengths are shown in Fig.~2 as functions of galactocentric distances
for the two characteristic values of circular velocity. We see that Field lengths in
general are quite large; clouds usually envisaged in adiabatic two-phase halo models
(Mo \& Miralda-Escud\'e 1996; Chiba \& Nath 1997) will evaporate through thermal conduction,
on the time scale $t_{\rm evap}$, as discussed by Cowie \& McKee (1977).

It is immediately clear that large values of the Field length are a consequence of extraordinarily
small density of the hot plasma. It is easy to see that this value must always be low, irrespective of whether we are dealing with huge protogalaxies like those in Kamaya (1997)
picture, or galactic-sized hot haloes of somewhat more modest size. If we perform a thought
experiment and distribute the entire baryonic mass of an $L_\ast$ galaxy, $M_B \sim 5
\times 10^{11}\; M_\odot$ (e.g.~Fields, Freese \& Graff 1998) over the halo of radius $R \sim
100$ kpc, maximal density at the edge of such halo is $\sim 5 \times 10^{-3}$ cm$^{-3}$, and since the adiabatic profile is quite shallow, this can not be very different from our
model values, implying Field lengths of tens of kpc. The existence of collapsed structures, like disk stars or MACHOs, will further increase this lengthscale.

However, if the clouds are contiguous structures of the sizes $\sim 100$ kpc (and still
surrounded by the hot medium) inferred by Dinshaw et al.~(1994, 1995), they will be stable against evaporation. On the contrary, they will grow through condensations of hot
ambiental plasma.

\section{Application of the Richardson Criterion}

K-H instability which will tend to shred the cold component will be stabilized by self-gravity if the so-called Richardson criterion
\begin{equation}
\label{rich1}
J > 0.25,
\end{equation}
is satisfied. It is important to emphasize that other means of stabilization (through magnetic fields, for example), are irrelevant of the Richardson criterion, so the breakdown of this criterion does not automatically imply the onset of K-H instability. In the above inequality, the Richardson number $J$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{rich2}
J \equiv - \frac{g}{\rho_c}
\frac{d\rho / dr}{(dV/dr)^2} \sim
\frac{g}{\rho_c}  \frac{\rho_c - \rho_h}{V_{\rm cir}^2} \lambda_F.
\end{equation}
The gravity of the cloud at position $r$ is denoted by $g$, and the density of cold clouds by $\rho_c$. Density and velocity gradients, $d\rho / dr$ and $dV/dr$ are evaluated {\it at the boundary layer\/} between the two phases, and corresponding vectors are oriented in such a way as to
point from the cold to the hot component (e.g. $d \rho /dr <0$). In the second part of this relation, we have used the approximation of Kamaya (1997), in assuming that $d\rho = \rho_h - \rho_c$, $dr = \lambda_F$. For gravitational acceleration, we may write the classical relation
\begin{equation}
\label{rich3}
g = \frac{GM_c}{R_c^2},
\end{equation}
where mass and radius of the cold cloud are denoted by $M_c$ and $R_c$ respectively. Finally,
we have approximated the relative velocity between the cloud and hot medium by the circular velocity $V_{\rm cir}$. There are several reasons why we should prefer this value to the approximation used by Kamaya (1997) which reduces to the virial velocity of {\it gaseous subsystem} only. The presence of large quantities of dark matter (95\% by mass according to our
fiducial adiabatic model) justifies using its virial velocity as the relevant velocity scale
within entire halo. Besides, the motions of clouds are likely to be bound from above by terminal
velocity (e.g.~Benjamin \& Danly 1997), which is in any case smaller than the circular velocity
(see also the discussion in Mo \& Miralda-Escud\'e 1996).

Using all these approximations, we can find Richardson number for two-phase medium of protogalactic or early galactic haloes in the form:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{fghh}
J & = & \frac{GM_c}{R_c^2} \frac{\lambda_F}{V_{\rm cir}^2} \left( 1 - \frac{\rho_h}{\rho_c} \right)  \approx \nonumber \\
& \approx & 8.9 \times 10^{-4} \! \left( \frac{V_{\rm cir}}{220\; {\rm km\; s}^{-1}} \right)^{-2}\! \!
\left( \frac{M_c}{10^6\; M_\odot} \right)  \! \left( \frac{R_c}{1\; {\rm kpc}} \right)^{-2}  \!
\! \left( \frac{\lambda_F}{10\; {\rm kpc}} \right).
\end{eqnarray}
We have used the fact that adiabatic models and other two-phase pictures predict pressure equilibrium of the two stable thermal phases with $\rho_h / \rho_c \sim 10^{-2}$. Of course, it is not necessary to achieve high precision in any of the terms in order to see that the resulting value is much smaller than the critical value of 0.25.

\section{Discussion}
We have redone the calculations of Kamaya (1997) intended to demonstrate the independence
of the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability of cloud self-gravity. We have improved that work in
two major respects:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
We have worked within the context of a specific, adiabatic halo model of Mo \& Miralda-Escud\'e
(1996), instead of postulating appropriate temperatures and densities.

\item
The more realistic cooling function based on numerical calculations of Sutherland \& Dopita
(1993) was used instead of the analytic approximation.
\end{enumerate}
The main conclusion, however, remains
the same: inclusion of self-gravity in the models of cold clouds formed by thermal instability
does not change their subjection to the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability. This conclusion is valid not only for two-component model of protogalaxies of Miyahata \& Ikeuchi (1995) and Kamaya
(1996), but also for adiabatic models of galactic haloes of Mo (1994) and Mo \& Miralda-Escud\'e
(1996) intended to explain the Lyman-limit absorption in QSO spectra.

It is of foremost importance to model physical conditions in the early stages of galactic
history, since that would enable us to understand the origin of the well-known features of
galaxies observable today. To this end, it is necessary to achieve better contact of several, seemingly distinct, fields of astrophysical research. In forthcoming papers of this series, we shall discuss other physical processes affecting cold condensations in galactic-sized haloes and limiting their lifetimes, like the Jeans instability and collision timescales.

\subsection*{Acknowledgements}

The author is happy to hereby express his gratitude to Dr. Hou Jun Mo for providing a very
useful cooling subroutine. The kind support and encouragement of Milica Topalovi\'c is also
wholeheartedly acknowledged.

\section*{References}
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{References}
\par\noindent\hangindent=1.5cm Aharonson, V., Regev, O. \& Shaviv, N. 1994, ApJ, 426, 621

\par\noindent\hangindent=1.5cm Benjamin, R. \& Danly, L. 1997, ApJ, 481, 764

\par\noindent\hangindent=1.5cm Chen, H.-W., Lanzetta, K. M., Webb, J. K. \& Barcons, X. 1998, ApJ, 498, 77

\par\noindent\hangindent=1.5cm Chiba, M., \& Nath, B. B. 1997, ApJ, 483, 638

\par\noindent\hangindent=1.5cm Cowie, L. L. \& McKee, C. F. 1977, ApJ, 211, 135

\par\noindent\hangindent=1.5cm Dinshaw, N., Impey, C. D., Foltz, C. B., Weymann, R. J. \& Chaffee, F. H. 1994, ApJ, 437, L87

\par\noindent\hangindent=1.5cm Dinshaw, N., Foltz, C. B., Impey, C. D., Weymann, R. J. \& Morris, S. L. 1995, Nature, 373, 223

\par\noindent\hangindent=1.5cm Field, G. B. 1965, ApJ, 142, 531

\par\noindent\hangindent=1.5cm Fields, B. D., Freese, K. \& Graff, D. S. 1998, NewA, 3, 347

\par\noindent\hangindent=1.5cm Gott, J. R. III \& Thuan, T. X. 1976, ApJ, 204, 649

\par\noindent\hangindent=1.5cm Ikeuchi, S. \& Norman, C. A. 1991, ApJ, 375, 479

\par\noindent\hangindent=1.5cm Kamaya, H. 1996, ApJ, 465, 769

\par\noindent\hangindent=1.5cm Kamaya, H. 1997, PASJ, 49, 435

\par\noindent\hangindent=1.5cm Kang, H., Shapiro, P. R., Fall, S. M. \& Rees, M. J. 1990, ApJ, 363, 488

\par\noindent\hangindent=1.5cm Lepp, S., McCray, R., Shull, J. M., Woods, D. T. \& Kallman, T. 1985, ApJ, 288, 58

\par\noindent\hangindent=1.5cm Miyahata, K. \& Ikeuchi, S. 1995, PASJ, 47, L37

\par\noindent\hangindent=1.5cm Mo, H. J. 1994, MNRAS, 269, L49

\par\noindent\hangindent=1.5cm Mo, H. J. \& Miralda-Escud\'{e}, J. 1996, ApJ, 469, 589

\par\noindent\hangindent=1.5cm Rees, M. J. 1978, Phys. Scripta 17, 371

\par\noindent\hangindent=1.5cm Sutherland, R. S. \& Dopita, M. A. 1993, ApJS, 88, 253

\par\noindent\hangindent=1.5cm Waxman, E. \& Miralda-Escud\'{e}, J. 1995, ApJ, 451, 451

\par\noindent\hangindent=1.5cm White, S. D. M.  \& Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341

\end{document}


\section{Introduction}

The role of the final-state radiative (FSR) effects in the processes
$e^+e^- \to W^+W^- +n(\gamma)\to 4f+n(\gamma)$
at and beyond LEP2
energies is of considerable interest
for the LEP2 and NLC physics
programs~\cite{lep2ybk:1996,frits:1998,frits:1999}.
In this paper, we evaluate for the first time the possible
interplay between the exact ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ electroweak (EW)
corrections and the leading-logarithm (LL) final-state
radiative effects for these processes
when the $n(\gamma)$ radiation is realized according
to the amplitude-based Monte Carlo event generator techniques
described in Refs.~\cite{yfsww2:1996,yfsww3:1998}, wherein
infrared singularities are cancelled to all orders in $\alpha$
by using the extension to spin~1 charged particles of the
theory of Yennie, Frautschi and Suura for QED~\cite{yfs:1961}.

   The final-state radiative effects are realized in the LL
approximation using the calculation of the program
PHOTOS (Ref.~\cite{photos:1994}) in which a non-radiative
final-state process is used to generate up to two photons in the
corresponding radiative process by iterating the
structure function evolution equation%
\footnote{To be precise an ansatz is provided, which reproduces the LL terms.
It includes transverse degrees of freedom for the photon 4-momentum,
assures coverage of the full phase space and rules of energy-momentum
conservation.
The photons' angular distribution is chosen to reproduce exactly the one
of the soft photon limit. See Ref.~\cite{photos:1994} for more details.
}
for QED~\cite{strfn}.
The exact ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ YFS exponentiated final-state $W$ decay
radiative effects will be published elsewhere~\cite{elsewh}.
In this connection, we note
that we expect the non-leading ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ and higher
order (${\cal O}(\alpha^n),~n \ge 2$) final-state radiative effects
to be small, $\sim 1\%$ in the peak reduction effect~\cite{frits:1998}
for example, even for a
``bare trigger''
acceptance for
the outgoing final charged particles. This has been found by
the authors of Ref.~\cite{frits:1998}, who analysed the effects
of final-state radiation in $Z$ decay in the naive exponentiated
(exact and LL) ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ approximation
and who estimated the corresponding
size of the analogous effects in $W$ decay, such as $\sim 14\%$ for the total
peak reduction effect.
Indeed, more recently, the authors of Ref.~\cite{frits:1998} have
made an independent cross check on their estimates of the
FSR line-shape effects for
$e^+e^-\rightarrow W^+W^-\rightarrow 4f$
in Ref.~\cite{frits:1999}. There they present an exact ${\cal O}(\alpha)$
calculation of the process in the double-pole approximation (DPA),
wherein they retain in the pole expansion~\cite{robin:1991} of the
complete $e^+e^-\rightarrow 4f$
amplitude, only the terms containing the double pole in the S-matrix
at the complex mass squared,
$M^2 = M_W^2-iM_W\Gamma_W$,
where $M_W,\Gamma_W$
are the respective mass and width of the $W$ boson,
and where in the residues of the respective double poles
they project the respective ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ corrections
to an appropriate on-shell point. Henceforth, we refer to the
on-shell residue projected DPA as to the leading pole
approximation (LPA), with more general applications in mind:
for example, in a triply resonant process, the LPA would
correspond to the triple pole terms in the respective S-matrix
element with the residues projected to an appropriate on-shell point. In this
gauge-invariant calculation, these authors find that the
FSR peak reduction effect is $\sim 14.4\%$ for
$W^{+(-)}\rightarrow e^{+(-)}\nu_e(\bar\nu_e)$, to be compared with
their estimate of $\sim 14\%$ in Ref.~\cite{frits:1998}.
We will compare our results with those in Refs.~\cite{frits:1998,frits:1999}.
We emphasise
that our work differs from the work of Ref.~\cite{frits:1998} in that
we include the exact EW ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ corrections with
YFS exponentiation in the production process and we actually calculate
the effects of the FSR in the $W$-pair
production and decay process
at LEP2/NLC energies; in Ref.~\cite{frits:1998}, only the process
$\nu_\mu \bar\nu_\mu\rightarrow ZZ\rightarrow e^+ e^-+\nu_\tau \bar\nu_\tau$
is actually calculated, and a heuristic argument is used to
estimate the corresponding results for final-state $W$-decay radiation.
Thus, our calculations will also be a comment on the accuracy of these
heuristic arguments in the presence of the YFS exponentiated exact
${\cal O}(\alpha)$ corrections to the  $W$-pair
production process. Our work differs from that
in Ref.~\cite{frits:1999} in that we include the YFS exponentiation
of the exact ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ production process in the $W$-pair
intermediate state and the ${\cal O}(\alpha)^2$ LL FSR whereas,
in Ref.~\cite{frits:1999}, the exact ${\cal O}(\alpha)$
correction to the production and decay processes for the $W$-pair
in the leading pole approximation is calculated without exponentiation.
The leading pole approximation treatment of the attendant
non-factorizable corrections in Refs.~\cite{mel:1996,fritsnf:1997,ditm:1998}
is also retained. The latter non-factorizable corrections
have been shown~\cite{mel:1996,fritsnf:1997,ditm:1998} to be small
and, as we explain in Ref.~\cite{yfsww3:1998}, when one works up to but not
including ${\cal O}(\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\frac{\Gamma_W}{M_W})$ as we do,
such effects may be dropped; which we do. Thus, although we start
our calculation in Ref.~\cite{yfsww3:1998}
in the fermion-loop scheme~\cite{been2:1996},
when we focus on the ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ EW correction, we go to the
leading pole part of the respective production amplitude. We also make the
approximation of using on-shell residues for this double pole part,
with which we then approximate the corresponding ${\cal O}(\alpha)$
EW correction. In our Monte Carlo event generator approach,
we stress that the full off-shell phase space is always retained here.
We improve our result by using the complete on-shell
residues for EW corrections
rather than their on-shell fermion-loop scheme representatives.
Indeed, for the QED bremsstrahlung correction we stress that,
since the real photon has $k^2=0$, the corresponding running
charge is the usual one. It can thus be shown that, in ${\cal O}(\alpha)$,
bremsstrahlung residues of the on-shell fermion-loop scheme are equivalent
to those in the LPA; in both cases
all infrared singularities are properly cancelled and not only
the QED gauge invariance is preserved but also the full
$SU_{2L}\times U_1$ gauge invariance~\cite{yfsww2:1996,yfsww3:1998}.
For this reason,
in order ${\cal O}(\alpha)$, in our final result, any reference to the
fermion-loop scheme is purely pedagogical. What we arrive at is
precisely the LPA, with full on-shell residues for the respective
double pole approximation.
Indeed, as the YFS expansion is not generally familiar, if one looks at
Eqs. (1) and (2) in Ref.~\cite{yfsww3:1998}, which give the
on-shell ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ contributions to the YFS residuals
$\bar\beta_0$ and $\bar\beta_1$, respectively, for the production
process in the LPA, one may think that the lowest-order contribution
to $\bar\beta_0$, $\bar\beta^{(0)}_0$ in
the notation of Ref.~\cite{yfsww3:1998}, is {\em not} required either to be
evaluated at the corresponding on-shell point as well.
However, the right-hand side
of Eq.~(2) in Ref.~\cite{yfsww3:1998}, for example, involves the
subtraction, from the corresponding on-shell ${\cal O}(\alpha)$
bremsstrahlung cross section,
of the product of the YFS real emission infrared
function $\tilde S$~\cite{yfs:1961,yfsww2:1996} by the on-shell
lowest order Born cross section;
{\em we need to stress that the} \underline{YFS theory} {\em then forces
the contribution to $\bar\beta_0$ corresponding
to this respective lowest-order Born cross section,
$\bar\beta^{(0)}_0$, to be evaluated at the
on-shell point as well}.
Thus, according to the YFS theory, Eqs.~(1) and (2) in Ref.~\cite{yfsww3:1998}
are entirely equivalent to results in Refs.~\cite{frits:1999} for the
production process, for the contributions up to and including terms
${\cal O}(\alpha)$.
As can also be seen from the results in Refs.~\cite{frits:1999},
these approximations are valid up to but not including
${\cal O}(\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\frac{\Gamma_W}{M_W})$. We then apply the
YFS Monte Carlo methods of two of us (S.J. and B.F.L.W.)~\cite{jw:1988},
as extended to spin~1 particles in Ref.~\cite{yfsww2:1996},
to arrive at the respective
exact ${\cal O}(\alpha)_{prod}$ YFS exponentiated results
realized in YFSWW3-1.11. Hence, we stress that, as far as the
${\cal O}(\alpha)$
correction to the production process under study
is concerned, the results in Refs.~\cite{frits:1999,yfsww3:1998}
should be equivalent, in view of the
many cross checks carried out by the authors of Refs.~\cite{ew1,ew2,ew3}
on the two corresponding electroweak on-shell calculations used therein.

More precisely, starting from the calculations in the program
YFSWW3-1.11 in Ref.~\cite{yfsww3:1998}, which feature the
exact ${\cal O}(\alpha)_{prod}$ YFS exponentiated results
for the process
$e^+e^-\rightarrow W^+W^-+n(\gamma)\rightarrow 4f + n(\gamma)$,
we have interfaced the outgoing final state
to the program PHOTOS~\cite{photos:1994}. The latter uses the structure
function evolution equation for QED~\cite{strfn} to generate up to
two final-state decay photons for each $W$ according to the
respective LL probabilities to radiate; here the corresponding
angular distributions of the decay photons are all generated
in accordance with this LL approximation as described in
Ref.~\cite{photos:1994}. The net probability of the respective event
is unchanged, i.e. the normalization of YFSWW3-1.11 is unaffected by this
interface, which will be described in more detail elsewhere~\cite{elsewh}.
We refer to the version of YFSWW3 that contains this final-state radiative
interface to PHOTOS as YFSWW3-1.12 and it is available from the
authors~\cite{yfsww3-1.12}.
In what follows, we present some sample Monte Carlo data from
YFSWW3-1.12 to look into the possible role of FSR in the presence
of the ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ EW corrections. For definiteness,
we focus here on the current LEP2 CMS energy of $190$~GeV and on the
SM couplings. The complete discussion of both LEP2 and NLC energies
with the illustration of anomalous couplings will
appear elsewhere~\cite{elsewh}.

\let\sstl=\scriptscriptstyle
\defW\c as{W\c as}
\def\Order#1{${\cal O}(#1$)}
\def\Ordpr#1{${\cal O}(#1)_{prag}$}
\def\bar{\beta}{\bar{\beta}}
\def\tilde{\beta}{\tilde{\beta}}
\def\tilde{\alpha}{\tilde{\alpha}}
\def\tilde{\omega}{\tilde{\omega}}
\def {1\over 2} { {1\over 2} }
\def {\alpha\over\pi} { {\alpha\over\pi} }

\def${\cal O}(\alpha^0)${${\cal O}(\alpha^0)$}
\def${\cal O}(\alpha^1)${${\cal O}(\alpha^1)$}
\def${\cal O}(\alpha^2)${${\cal O}(\alpha^2)$}
\begin{table}[!ht]

\centering
\begin{tabular}{||c|c|c|c|c||}
\hline\hline
 $E_{CM}\,{\rm [GeV]}$  & Calculation & FSR &
 CUT &$\langle M_W\rangle \,{\rm [GeV]}$\\
\hline
~&~&$W^-\rightarrow e^-\bar\nu_e$& ~&\\
\hline
$190$ & {\it Born} &--  & $ BARE$
      & $80.253\pm 0.008$ \\
      & {\it EW-ex} & $NO$ & $BARE$
      & $80.146\pm 0.036$ \\
      & {\it No~EW} & $NO$ & $BARE$
      & $80.142\pm 0.036$ \\
      & {\it No~EW} & $YES$ & $BARE$
      & $78.614\pm 0.035$ \\
      & {\it EW-ap} & $YES$ & $BARE$
      & $78.613\pm 0.035$ \\
      & {\it EW-ex} & $YES$ & $BARE$
      & $78.618\pm 0.035$ \\
      & {\it No~EW} & $YES$ & $CALO$
      & $79.727\pm 0.036$ \\
      & {\it EW-ap} & $YES$ & $CALO$
      & $79.725\pm 0.036$ \\
      & {\it EW-ex} & $YES$ & $CALO$
      & $79.731\pm 0.036$ \\
\hline
~ &~&$W^-\rightarrow \mu\bar\nu_\mu$&~& \\
\hline
$190$ & {\it Born} &--  & $ BARE$
      & $80.253\pm 0.008$ \\
      & {\it EW-ex} & $NO$ & $BARE$
      & $80.146\pm 0.036$ \\
      & {\it No~EW} & $NO$ & $BARE$
      & $80.142\pm 0.036$ \\
      & {\it No~EW} & $YES$ & $BARE$
      & $79.374\pm 0.036$ \\
      & {\it EW-ap} & $YES$ & $BARE$
      & $79.373\pm 0.036$ \\
      & {\it EW-ex} & $YES$ & $BARE$
      & $79.378\pm 0.036$ \\
      & {\it No~EW} & $YES$ & $CALO$
      & $79.725\pm 0.036$ \\
      & {\it EW-ap} & $YES$ & $CALO$
      & $79.724\pm 0.036$ \\
      & {\it EW-ex} & $YES$ & $CALO$
      & $79.730\pm 0.036$ \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}

\caption{\small\sf The results of the $125\times10^6$
statistics samples (weighted events)
(except for $Born$, where the sample is $540\times10^6$ of such events)
from YFSWW3-1.12 for the average value of $M_W$ as computed
with the levels of radiative corrections as indicated
for both bare and calorimetric treatments of the final lepton.
See the text for more details.
}
\label{tab:xsec}
\end{table}

Specifically, in Figs.~1--8, we show the results obtained with
YFSWW3-1.12 on the processes $e^+e^-\rightarrow W^+W^-+n(\gamma)
\rightarrow \bar c s+\ell \bar\nu_{\ell}$, $\ell = e,~\mu$,
for the cosine of the $W$ production angle distribution in the CM
(LAB) system, for the $W$ mass distribution, with both
``bare'' and ``calorimetric''
definitions of that mass, for the CMS lepton final energy distribution,
for both calorimetric and bare definitions of that energy, and
for the corresponding distributions of the cosine of the
lepton decay angle in the
$W$ rest frame.
We note the following
properties of these results. First, concerning the $W$ mass distributions
in Figs.~1 and 5, we see that the respective average values of $M_W$
are as given in Table~1. There, {\it EW-ex} denotes the exact
${\cal O}(\alpha)_{prod}$ calculation of EW corrections~\cite{yfsww3:1998};
{\it EW-ap} denotes the approximate treatment of these EW corrections as given
in Ref.~\cite{sigap}; {\it No~EW} denotes that the EW corrections
other than the ones coming from
LL (${\cal O}(\alpha^2)$) initial-state radiation
are turned off. The calorimetric results are all closer to their respective
{\it NO FSR} analogues than are the bare results, as expected.
The effects of the FSR for the muon case are all respectively smaller than
the corresponding results for the electron case, again as expected
because of the smaller radiation probability for the muon. The size of the
shift of $\langle M_W\rangle$ is generally consistent with the discussion in
Ref.~\cite{frits:1998}, which deals with primarily the line shape
(peak position and height); in detail we see that,
in the presence of the FSR, at the level of our statistical errors,
for an average quantity such as $\langle M_W\rangle$, all three
calculations in the table are sufficient, as expected.
With regard to the guesstimates made in Ref.~\cite{frits:1998}
concerning the peak reduction and the peak position shift,
we see from the $BARE$ curves in Fig.~1 that our result
of $13.5\%$ for the peak reduction in the $e^-$ case
(comparing the {\it EW-ex} curves with and without FSR) is in good agreement
with the $14\%$ guesstimate of Ref.~\cite{frits:1998}
and with the $14.4\%$ found in the recent ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ on-shell
LPA results in Ref.~\cite{frits:1999}. The $\sim-57$~MeV
guesstimated in Ref.~\cite{frits:1998} for the
corresponding peak position shift in the $e^-$ case was recently
updated to $-77$~MeV in Ref.~\cite{frits:1999};
for the $\mu$ case, the updated
expectation from Ref.~\cite{frits:1999} for the peak position shift
is $-39$~MeV. For completeness, we note that the size of the
peak reduction effect in the $\mu$ case has been found to be
$\sim 8\%$ in Ref.~\cite{frits:1999} whereas in Fig.~5 we find
$7.6\%$, again showing good agreement
between our results and those in Ref.~\cite{frits:1999}.
Indeed, to compare our results for the peak position shift with
those just cited from Ref.~\cite{frits:1999}, we have performed
Breit--Wigner fits to our line shapes in Figs.~1 and 5 with the
values, both fixed and floating, of the $W$ width. The results of our
fits are shown in Table~2.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
{\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{||l|c|cc|cc|cc||}
\hline\hline
 \multicolumn{8}{||c||}{ $M_W$ or $M_W$/$\Gamma_W$ [GeV]} \\
 \hline\hline
 \multicolumn{8}{||c||}{$W^-\rightarrow e^-\bar\nu_e$} \\
 \hline
             & $M$-range &
 \multicolumn{2}{|c}{\it No FSR} & \multicolumn{2}{|c}{\it FSR-BARE} &
 \multicolumn{2}{|c||}{\it FSR-CALO}\\
\cline{3-8}
 & [GeV]&$\Gamma_W$-fix & $\Gamma_W$-fit &
         $\Gamma_W$-fix & $\Gamma_W$-fit &
         $\Gamma_W$-fix & $\Gamma_W$-fit \\
\hline
 {\it Born} &78 -- 82 &
 $80.240$ & $80.240$/$2.0413$ & & & & \\
          &76 -- 84 &
 $80.239$ & $80.239$/$2.0376$ & & & & \\
\hline
 {\it No EW} &78 -- 82 &
 $80.231$ & $80.231$/$2.0442$ &
 $80.166$ & $80.168$/$2.2105$ &
 $80.216$ & $80.217$/$2.0831$   \\
             &76 -- 84 &
 $80.227$ & $80.227$/$2.0372$ &
 $80.142$ & $80.135$/$2.2547$ &
 $80.207$ & $80.207$/$2.0892$   \\
\hline
 {\it EW-ap} &78 -- 82 &
          &                   &
 $80.166$ & $80.168$/$2.2105$ &
 $80.216$ & $80.217$/$2.0832$   \\
             &76 -- 84 &
          &                   &
 $80.142$ & $80.134$/$2.2547$ &
 $80.207$ & $80.207$/$2.0892$   \\
\hline
 {\it EW-ex} &78 -- 82 &
 $80.231$ & $80.231$/$2.0443$ &
 $80.166$ & $80.168$/$2.2105$ &
 $80.216$ & $80.217$/$2.0832$   \\
             &76 -- 84 &
 $80.227$ & $80.227$/$2.0372$ &
 $80.142$ & $80.134$/$2.2547$ &
 $80.207$ & $80.207$/$2.0892$   \\
\hline

 \multicolumn{8}{||c||}{$W^-\rightarrow \mu^-\bar\nu_{\mu}$} \\
\hline
 {\it Born} &78 -- 82 &
 $80.241$ & $80.241$/$2.0308$ & & & & \\
          &76 -- 84 &
 $80.250$ & $80.250$/$2.0295$ & & & & \\
\hline
 {\it No EW} &78 -- 82 &
 $80.232$ & $80.232$/$2.0342$ &
 $80.198$ & $80.199$/$2.1196$ &
 $80.217$ & $80.218$/$2.0731$   \\
             &76 -- 84 &
 $80.238$ & $80.238$/$2.0307$ &
 $80.192$ & $80.190$/$2.1481$ &
 $80.217$ & $80.217$/$2.0845$   \\
\hline
 {\it EW-ap} &78 -- 82 &
          &                   &
 $80.198$ & $80.199$/$2.1196$ &
 $80.217$ & $80.218$/$2.0731$   \\
             &76 -- 84 &
          &                   &
 $80.192$ & $80.190$/$2.1481$ &
 $80.217$ & $80.217$/$2.0845$   \\
\hline
 {\it EW-ex} &78 -- 82 &
 $80.232$ & $80.232$/$2.0343$ &
 $80.198$ & $80.199$/$2.1196$ &
 $80.217$ & $80.218$/$2.0731$   \\
             &76 -- 84 &
 $80.238$ & $80.238$/$2.0307$ &
 $80.192$ & $80.190$/$2.1481$ &
 $80.217$ & $80.217$/$2.0845$   \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\caption{\small\sf The results of the Breit--Wigner line shape fit
to the YFSWW3-1.12 MC sample for the $W^-$ invariant mass distribution
at $E_{CMS} = 190$~GeV. The input values of the $W$ mass and width were:
$M_W=80.23$~GeV and $\Gamma_W=2.03367033$~GeV (this value was used in
the $\Gamma_W$-fix fit). The fits were performed for two $W$ invariant
mass $M$ ranges -- as indicated in the table.
See the text for more details.
}
\label{tab2:xsec}
\end{table}
For comparison, the fits are done for two
different mass intervals, from $78$~GeV to $82$~GeV, and
from $76$~GeV to $84$~GeV, to illustrate the role of the wings of the resonance
in the fits. From these results we find that the {\it BARE}
peak position shifts are estimated using the narrow fit range
as $80.168 - 80.240=-72$~MeV and $80.199 - 80.241=-42$~MeV for the
$e$ and $\mu$ cases, respectively.
We also computed the shift in the average
invariant mass $\langle M_W\rangle$ of the $W$ in the narrow range
from $78$~GeV to $82$~GeV as another estimate of the peak position shift
for the {\it BARE} trigger and we found $-81.5\pm1.4$~MeV and
$-43.9\pm0.9$~MeV for the $e$ and $\mu$ cases, respectively.
Thus, both sets of estimators of the peak position
shifts are in reasonable agreement with
the results given in Ref.~\cite{frits:1999}%
\footnote{ The fit mass shift and
the peak position shift approach one another as the fit range
approaches a zero size interval around the peak;
a similar remark applies to the shift in the
average mass relative to the range over which it is taken
around the peak.}; in this connection, we recall the slight difference in
beam energy between our studies ($95$~GeV) and those in Ref.~\cite{frits:1999}
($92$~GeV).
Moreover, we see
in Table~2 the same pattern of results as we see in Table~1: the
FSR effects for the $e$ case are more pronounced than those for the
$\mu$ case; the calorimetric acceptance reduces the size of the FSR effects;
the results are not very sensitive to the EW correction
to the production process.
If we compare the predictions
with and without FSR for the {\it EW-ex} and {\it no~EW} cases
we get a measure of the modulation of the FSR on the EW correction.
From the curves in our Figs.~1 and 5 and the respective plots of
the $\delta_{RAD}$ as defined in the figures we see that this
modulation is as expected.
Concerning the cosine of the $W$ production angle distributions,
we see the interplay
of the exact EW corrections on the one hand and the FSR on the other.
Further, we see that the approximate EW corrections of Ref.~\cite{sigap},
while a definite improvement over the no EW corrections at all,
are not sufficient to describe this interplay at the level of
$0.5$--$1.0\%$. Similar remarks hold for the lepton energy distribution in the
CM system, although the corresponding insufficiency is reduced to the level
of $\sim 0.3\%$ for the $BARE$ case, for example for electrons.
Concerning the distributions of the cosine of the lepton decay angle
in the $W$ rest frame, we again see the importance of including both
the EW corrections and the FSR in Figs.~4 and~8, for the electron
and the muon, respectively.
In all cases, the results for the muon, particularly the $BARE$ results,
are less affected by the FSR than are the corresponding results
for the electron, as expected. We stress
that our results in Figs. 1--8 are generally
consistent with those in Ref.~\cite{frits:1999} keeping in mind
that we treat the ${\cal O}(\alpha^2)$ LL FSR and the YFS exponentiated
on-shell exact ${\cal O}(\alpha)_{prod}$ production process,
whereas Ref.~\cite{frits:1999} treats only ${\cal O}(\alpha)$
corrections in our LPA, in which only on-shell residues are used.
Indeed, in addition to the agreements already cited,
we call the reader's attention to the normalization correction in
Fig.~9 of Ref.~\cite{frits:1999}: at the CMS energy of $\sqrt{s}=190$~GeV,
it is $-11\%$, in very good agreement with our result in
Ref.~\cite{yfsww3:1998}, which is $(1+\delta_{prod})(\rho_w)^2-1\cong-11.1\%$,
for the latter result, we have used Table~2 in Ref.~\cite{yfsww3:1998} for the
relative correction $\delta_{prod}=-9.9\%$ to the production
process, and the result in Ref.~\cite{dima:1986} for the
${\cal O}(\alpha)$ correction to the leptonic partial width
$\rho_w-1\cong -0.686\%$. In addition, we can note that, for
the case of the $\tau\bar\nu_\tau$ decay channel, our results
are also consistent with those in Ref.~\cite{frits:1999}
for the peak position shift and peak reduction effects.
In view of our higher-order corrections, we find quite reasonable all
the agreements noted here. A more detailed discussion
of such comparisons will appear~\cite{elsewh}. We stress that
we have arrived at our results through a MC event generator realization
of our calculation, in which realistic, finite $p_T$, $n(\gamma)$
radiation is incorporated in the production process on an event-by-event
basis, whereas the results in Ref.~\cite{frits:1999} are
all semi-analytical. This enhances the significance of the
general agreement of our results where they do overlap.
\par

The issue of whether the calorimetric
results are more realistic than the bare ones appears to depend
on whether one is talking about the muon or the
electron%
\footnote{T. Kawamoto, private communication, 1998.}.
For the electron, it is very difficult
to separate the soft photons with energy $\lesssim \Gamma_W$
that are responsible for the FSR effects of the $W$ line shape as
discussed already in Refs.~\cite{frits:1998,frits:1999}; they are just a part
of the electromagnetic calorimeter response in general, which is used
to measure the electron energy. For the muon, the energy is usually
measured by a muon chamber in which, in general, these soft photons
are not present. Thus, for the electron, our calorimetric results
are more realistic; for the muon, it is the other way around.
In either case, we see that precision $W$-pair production and decay
studies need to take the interplay between the FSR and the EW
corrections into account so as to obtain the most precise tests
of the SM; our calculations in YFSWW3-1.12 offer
an avenue to achieve that goal.

\vspace{7mm}
\noindent
{\large\bf  Acknowledgements}

Two of us (S.J. and B.F.L.W.) acknowledge the
kind hospitality of Prof. A. De R\'ujula and the CERN Theory
Division while this work was being completed.
Two of us (B.F.L.W. and W.P.)
acknowledge the support of Prof.~D.~Schlatter
and the ALEPH Collaboration
in the final stages of this work.
One of us (Z.W.) acknowledges the support of the L3 group of ETH Zurich
during the time this work was performed.