In studying systems of 3 or more identical, non-interacting particles, fermions or bosons, I have read that to create eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian that are antisymmetric or symmetric one creates the symmetric and antisymmetric sums, respectively. Let assume the Hamiltonian is separable $H=H_1+H_+...+H_i$ and $\psi_{\alpha}(x_1,x_2,...,x_n)$ is the total Hamiltonian eigenfunction which can be written as $\psi_{\alpha}(x_1,x_2,...,x_n)=\phi_{\alpha_1}(x_1),\phi_{\alpha_2}(x_2),...,\phi_{\alpha_n}(x_n)$ where $\phi_{\alpha_i}(x_i)$ is the eigenfunction fo Hamiltonian $H_i$. The symmetric and antisymmetric sums are:
$$\psi_{\alpha}^{(s)}(x_1,x_2,...,x_n)=\sum_{i} \psi_{\alpha}(P_i(x_1,x_2,...,x_n))$$
$$\psi_{\alpha}^{(a)}(x_1,x_2,...,x_n)=\sum_{i} (-1)^{|P_i|}\psi_{\alpha}(P_i(x_1,x_2,...,x_n))$$
where $|P_i|$ assumes values $+1$ or $-1$ depending on whether the permutation $P_i$ of the coordinates is of odd or even order, respectively and $\alpha$ indicates the set of quantum numbers.
I thought this same method could be used to construct even and odd eigenfunctions for systems of only two particles as well.
For example we assume a system with total Hamiltonian $H=H_1+H_2$ where $H_1$ and $H_2$ are two non-interacting hydrogen Hamiltonians and the two particles are fermions of spin $1/2$.
We consider the physical system in its fundamental state, that is, with both particles on the ground state so that their quantum numbers are $\alpha_1=[n=1,l=0,l_z=0,s_z=1/2]$ and $\alpha_2=[n=1,l=0,l_z=0,s_z=-1/2]$, if I want to use the method of antisymmetric sum I write the quantum numbers $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ as $(n,s_z)_i$ so $(1,1/2)_1$ and $(1,-1/2)_2$ and I write $$\psi_{\alpha}(\vec{r_1},\vec{r_2})=\phi_{1,1/2}(\vec{r_1})\phi_{1,-1/2}(\vec{r_2})-\phi_{1,-1/2}(\vec{r_1})\phi_{1,1/2}(\vec{r_2})$$ which can be rewritten in the classical form $\psi_{\alpha}(\vec{r_1},\vec{r_2})=\phi_{1}(\vec{r_1})\phi_{1}(\vec{r_2})|1/2,1/2;0,0\rangle$ with $|S_1,S_2;S,S_z\rangle$. No problems till here, the problem I have is when considering this system in the first excited state when the system is in this particular arrangement: $\alpha_1=[1,-1/2]$ and $\alpha_2=[2,1/2]$ so that one particle is in the fundamental level with spin down and the other particle is in the first excited state with spin up. Again, I want to use the method of anisymmetric sum, and I obtain something wrong, in fact:
$$\psi_{\alpha}(\vec{r_1},\vec{r_2})=\phi_{1,-1/2}(\vec{r_1})\phi_{2,1/2}(\vec{r_2})-\phi_{2,1/2}(\vec{r_1})\phi_{1,-1/2}(\vec{r_2})$$
Now, from what I understand, the logic behind these mathematical formalisms is that since the particles are identical, the total state must be a linear combination of two states, one with the $1$ and $2$ indices and the other with the swapped indices, which is what I wrote via permutations, but I get the wrong result, in fact I can rewrite via spinors my wavefunction like this:
$$\psi_{\alpha}(\vec{r_1},\vec{r_2})=\phi_{1}(\vec{r_1})\begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \phi_{2}(\vec{r_2})\begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} -\phi_{2}(\vec{r_1})\begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \phi_{1,}(\vec{r_2})\begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} $$
instead, in this case, I should get 4 of these "blocks", namely: $$\psi_{\alpha}(\vec{r_1},\vec{r_2})=\phi_{1}(\vec{r_1})\begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \phi_{2}(\vec{r_2})\begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} -\phi_{2}(\vec{r_1})\begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \phi_{1,}(\vec{r_2})\begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} +\phi_{1}(\vec{r_1})\begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \phi_{2}(\vec{r_2})\begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} -\phi_{2}(\vec{r_1})\begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \phi_{1,}(\vec{r_2})\begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix}$$
Where do I go wrong?
Important, I know how to build the states correctly, my problem is that I can't build them correctly with this other method that I've seen is only used with 3 particles or more.
I would like to show what I am doing wrong in the construction of the states with this second method, if it can be used in the case of only two particles, and if it is right the reasoning that I have set out in the sentence before the last equation (Now, from what I understand, the logic behind these mathematical formalisms...)