Well, it becomes a bit clearer when we see the final formulas of Ref. 1:
δ⟨af,tf|ai,ti⟩ = iℏ∫tftidt⟨af,tf|δL(t)|ai,ti⟩
δ′δ⟨af,tf|ai,ti⟩ = 12(iℏ)2∫tftidt∫tftidt′
×⟨af,tf|T[δL(t) δ′L(t′)]|ai,ti⟩.
Recall that the Schwinger action principle can be described via a time integral ∫tftidt δL(t) of an operator δL(t). Imagine that the time interval
[ti,tf] = ∪Nn=1In,In := [tn−1,tn],
is divided into a sufficiently fine discretization ti=t0<t1,…tN−1<tN=tf, where the integer N is sufficiently large.
By inserting many completeness identities ∑b|b,tn⟩⟨b,tn|=1, we can split a total variation (7.126) into many small contribution labelled by the time intervals In, n∈{1,2,…,N}.
Similarly, when performing a double variation (7.131), we will get N diagonal and N(N−1) off-diagonal contributions labelled by two time intervals In and Im, where n,m∈{1,2,…,N}. (A diagonal contribution n=m refers to the same time interval In=Im.) If in the limit N→∞, the N(N−1) off-diagonal contributions dominate over the N diagonal contributions, the two variations becomes effectively independent.
However in hindsight, it seems that Ref. 1 is assuming that the two variation δ and δ′ are manifestly independent and not just effectively independent. Manifest independence here means that the δ′ variation simply doesn't act on the δL(t) operator, and vice-versa.
References:
- D.J. Toms, The Schwinger Action Principle and Effective Action, 1997, Section 7.6.
This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-20 15:03 (UCT), posted by SE-user Qmechanic