 Solution

Spin and spatial exchange symmetry. Write the normalized spin singlet and triplet states asThe singlet is antisymmetric under exchange and has total spin zero; the triplet is symmetric and has total spin one. For orthogonal orbitals defineIdentical spin one-half particles are fermions, so the complete state must be antisymmetric. Thus $C{\chi }_{00}$ is allowed, and $A{\chi }_{1M}$ is allowed for each triplet component. The spatially symmetric same-orbital states $|aa⟩,|bb⟩$ also require the singlet. A same-orbital triplet vanishes by the Pauli exclusion principle.

These products give a spin-adapted basis. More generally the physical state can be writtenA superposition of the singlet and triplet sectors need not factor into one spatial function times one spin function. Factorization holds for a definite-spin sector, as used in the subsequent model. If the original normalized orbitals are not orthogonal, the corresponding $ab\pm ba$ normalization is $\sqrt{2(1\pm |⟨a|b⟩{|}^2)}$; the remainder of this calculation uses the stipulated orthogonal orbitals.

Integral matrix elements and positivity. Let $a(\mathbf{r})$ and $b(\mathbf{r})$ denote the localized spatial orbitals. With fixed proton positions, the one-electron electronic operator isThe proton-proton repulsion is a separate common nuclear energy. The requested one-electron and direct two-electron elements areSince $H_1=h\otimes I$,Likewise,The integrand is nonnegative and is positive on a set of nonzero measure. This is the repulsion cost of double occupancy; the coincidence singularity is integrable for ordinary smooth localized orbitals.

One electron on each center. Suppress the normalized singlet spin factor and use $|\psi ⟩=C$. For each of the spatial products $ab$ and $ba$, the one-body sum has expectation $2E_0$. The cross terms vanish because a one-body hop leaves an orthogonal spectator orbital. The interaction contribution is the direct integral plus the exchange integral, both neglected in the model. ConsequentlyThis state has no same-center double occupancy, but remains an exchange-symmetric spatial superposition rather than assigning a distinguishable electron permanently to each proton.

Two electrons in the bonding orbital. The normalized one-electron bonding orbital is $g=(a+b)/\sqrt{2}$. The trial spatial state is $|\varphi ⟩=|gg⟩$, whose one-body expectation isExpanding the product gives $|\varphi ⟩=(|aa⟩+|ab⟩+|ba⟩+|bb⟩)/2$. The total probability of double occupancy is therefore $1/2$. Keeping only on-site Coulomb repulsion gives the intended interaction truncation,and the interaction expectation is $U/2$. HenceThis truncation must be stated. In particular, mixed Coulomb elements such as $X=⟨aa|H_{1,2}|ab⟩$ do not vanish merely by orbital orthogonality or inversion symmetry. The printed list does not explicitly name them. If they are retained and are equal and real by site symmetry, their contribution to $E_{\varphi }$ is $2X$; the requested expression uses their neglect along with the other off-site interaction terms. No numerical value of $X$ is supplied or invented.

Energy comparison and the bond. Put $x=|t|/U$ with $U>0$ and $t=-|t|$. ThenThe straight line starts at $1/2$ and crosses zero at $x=1/4$. The purely bonding-orbital trial state is better for $x>1/4$, while the singly occupied covalent trial state is better for $x<1/4$.

For localized orbitals of approximately fixed atomic size, the hopping magnitude $|t|$ decreases rapidly, typically exponentially times a polynomial, as the proton separation grows. The on-site integral $U$ remains of atomic Coulomb scale and tends to the isolated-orbital value; it does not decay as the intersite repulsion $1/R$. If the orbitals themselves are allowed to relax, $U$ also changes, so no universal monotonic law for $U(R)$ follows from the data.

At small $|t|/U$, electron correlation suppresses the ionic configurations $aa$ and $bb$, favoring a singlet with roughly one electron on each center. A single doubly occupied bonding orbital has an artificial finite ionic weight even as the centers separate. At large $|t|/U$, delocalization gains enough kinetic energy that the bonding-orbital description becomes useful and charge fluctuations are substantial.

The crossing of two restricted trial energies is not a sharp transition of the actual two-site ground state. To see this without adding empirical data, include both $C$ and the symmetric ionic state $I_{+}=(|aa⟩+|bb⟩)/\sqrt{2}$. This two-site Hubbard dimer reduces toIts ground state is $\cos \theta C+\sin \theta I_{+}$, with $\tan 2\theta =4|t|/U$ and $0\le \theta \le \pi /4$. The ionic probability isIt changes smoothly from zero to $1/2$. At large separation, the electronic lowering is $-4t^2/U$ to leading order and vanishes as hopping vanishes. An absolute molecular binding curve would additionally require $E_0(R)$, the nuclear repulsion and the neglected intersite terms; this simplified comparison alone does not determine an equilibrium bond length.