Wow, its nice to see an old thread resurrected after over 3 years
I received an email a few months ago from someone who mistook me for someone else, but gave me a link to a paper he co-authored on the analytical form of the wavefunctions for the double delta potential well. The reference is
T.C. Scott, J.F. Babb, A. Dalgarno and John D. Morgan III, "The Calculation of Exchange Forces: General Results and Specific Models", J. Chem. Phys., 99, pp. 2841-2854, (1993).
I haven't looked into this paper because I couldn't get hold of it, and eventually I forgot about it (the semester is a wonderful thing...). And back in '06, I didn't quite analyze it in as much detail...certainly not up to the Lambert W functions.
With zero coupling, you are basically solving for two different problems and superposing the (shifted) wavefunctions. The sum isn't a solution to
any Schrodinger equation since you'd have to throw away cross terms like V_{i}\psi_{j}(1-\delta_{ij}) (i, j = 1, 2), which is of course wrong. So, its an approximation, albeit a poor one.
Personally, I have reservations against mathematically looking at the situation from the point of view of even and odd states (sum and difference) with zero coupling for the simple reason that the wavefunction for the potential V_{1}+V_{2} is
not equal to the sum of wavefunctions for V_{1} and V_{2}. Sure we use this approximation in atomic physics and in chemistry for MO theory, but its better to say that in the weak coupling regime, the eigenfunction has a similar behaviour as do the even or odd states. Plus, this is a Delta 'function' potential, so I'd be careful with the approximations. I think its a better idea to cook up a problem with two rectangular wells, study them in weak coupling and then blow up their height (or depth in this case) and shrink the width to make them delta functions.
Nevertheless, your physical conclusions seem correct, and since you've worked out the wavefunctions analytically in such detail, you no doubt have done the math correctly.
But your conclusions in the 0724 post are correct.