Birthplace: Council, ID
Location of death: Yonkers, NY
Cause of death: unspecified
Race or Ethnicity: White
Sexual orientation: Straight
Nationality: United States
Executive summary: Determined shapes of nuclei
Father: (civil engineer, d. 1918 influenza pandemic)
Father: George Fowler (stepfather)
Wife: Emma Louise Smith (m. 1942, three sons, one daughter)
Daughter: Elizabeth Ann (d. while young)
University: California Institute of Technology
University: PhD, Columbia University (1946)
Professor: Physics, Columbia University (1952-)
Nobel Prize for Physics 1975 (with Aage N. Bohr and Ben R. Mottelson)
American Physical Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Academy of Sciences
American physicist who won a share of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1975 for his part in determining the asymmetrical shapes of certain atomic nuclei.
Educated at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, and Columbia University, where he received his doctorate in 1946, Rainwater worked on the Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb during World War II. In 1949 he began formulating a theory that not all atomic nuclei are spherical, as was then generally believed. The theory was tested experimentally and confirmed by Danish physicists Aage N. Bohr and Ben R. Mottelson. For their work the three scientists were awarded jointly the 1975 Nobel Prize for Physics.
Rainwater was a professor of physics at Columbia from 1952 and Pupin professor of physics there from 1982. He also conducted valuable research on X rays and took part in Atomic Energy Commission and naval research projects. He was awarded the AEC’s Ernest Orlando Lawrence Prize for Physics in 1963.
James Rainwater, son of John Rainwater and Mary Fussell, was born in North Carolina. His moms and dads were wed in or before 1735. In 1754, he served in the Granville Co., NC militia – something which under regular circumstances he would not have done before the age of 16. We for that reason place the year of his birth between 1735 and 1738.
Little is understood of James Rainwater. He left no marriage record, no will, no family Bible. All that is known of him comes from home records, militia records and the occasional service on a jury (see Evidence for Very early Rainwaters, prior to 1800). As I have assembled these lists, it has emerged that the kids of two various households have been consistently confused with one another – that is, the children of James Rainwater of North Carolina, and James Rainwater of Sevier Co., Tennessee.
The problem for many researchers is that James is the link from their provable ancestors to John Rainwater and Mary Fussell. So far, none has actually had the ability to adequately prove the names of James’s kids. What we have is a custom of these children, with absolutely nothing on which to base it. Over the years I have actually collected a number of lists of James Rainwater’s children. I do not reproduce them below to humiliate the originators however to show the thorny trouble of proving descent from James. Just to further complex things, the existance of numerous of the individuals on these lists in not in question – merely the identification of their moms and dads.
Leo Jaspar Rainwater, the son of George M. and Leonella Wood Rainwater, was born in 1884. A civil engineer, he was wed to Edna E. Teague in Calfornia, and the couple settled in Council, Adams Co., Idaho. In November 1918, at the height of the 1918 influenza epidemic, Leo Jaspar Rainwater died, leaving behind his spouse and orphaned son, Leo James Rainwater, who was then not quite a year old.
Leo James Rainwater got a batchelor’s degree in physics in 1939 from the California Institute of Technology, followed by his doctoral degree from Columbia University in 1946. Like many American scientists, he contributed his talents to the the Manhattan Job during World War II. He ultimately ended up being a professor at Columbia teaching and doing experimental work in physics, until he retired in 1986. Dr. Rainwater also two times acted as supervisor of the college’s Nevis Cyclotron Laboratory. He got the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1975 for his contributions in determining the unbalanced shapes of certain atomic nuclei.
Nuclear Energy Level Argument for a Spheroidal Nuclear Model
Recently there has been noteworthy excellence, specifically by Maria Mayer, in clarifying lots of nuclear phenomena including spins, magnetic moments, isomeric states, etc. on the basis of a single fragment model for the different nucleons in a spherical nucleus. The spherical model, however, appears incapable of discussing the observed large quadrupole minutes of nuclei. In this paper it is revealed that an extension of the logic of this model causes the forecast that greater security is gotten for a spheroidal than for a spherical nucleus of the same volume, when practical assumptions are made worrying the variation of the energy terms on distortion. The anticipated quadrupole moment variation with odd A is in basic agreement with the experimental values as troubles variation with A, but are even larger than the experimental values. Because the true situation probably includes significant “dilution” of the extreme single particle model, it is motivating that the present predictions are bigger as opposed to smaller than the experimental outcomes. An option is offered for the energy levels of a particle in a spheroidal box.
I was born December 9, 1917 in a small town in Idaho (Council) where my moms and dads had actually transferred to from California to run a general store. My dad, who had previously been a civil engineer, died in the great influenza epidemic of 1918. My mother then moved with me and her mother to Hanford, Calif. in the San Joaquin Valley of California, where she was re-married to George Fowler a few years later. In my schooling with high school, I excelled mainly in chemistry, physics and mathematics. Due generally to my record on an open chemistry competitors offered by Cal Tech, I was confessed, finishing in 1939 as a physics significant. Carl David Anderson was my physics team recitation trainer when he got his Nobel Reward and Milliken was the Head of state of the Institute. I had a short biology course taught by Thomas Hunt Morgan. In 1939 I began graduate research in physics as a teaching assistant at Columbia University where I have continued to be. Throughout the first 2 years, I had courses under I.I. Rabi, Enrico Fermi, Edward Teller and J.R. Dunning Fermi was working with neutron mediator assemblies which led to the first working nuclear “pile” after his team was relocated to Chicago. Dunning, Booth, Slack, and Von Grosse held the basic patent on the gaseous diffusion procedure for 235U enrichment and were working with its development. This developed into the Oak Ridge enrichment plants and today U.S. technology for 235U enrichment. In March 1942, I married Emma Louise Smith. We have three sons, James, Robert and William who are all now adults. We likewise had a daughter, Elizabeth Ann, who passed away while young.
Throughout W.W. II, I dealt with W.W. Havens, Jr. and C.S. Wu under Dr. Dunning (Manhattan Project) mainly doing pulsed neutron spectroscopy making use of the small Columbia cyclotron. I received my Ph. D after my thesis was de-classified in 1946. I continued at Columbia, initially as an instructor, reaching the rank of complete professor in 1952. About 1946 financing was acquired from the Office of Naval Research to construct a synchrocyclotron which became operational in very early 1950. I was included with the facility development from the beginning and my research has made use of that center since. The research included neutron resonance spectroscopy, the angular circulation of pion elastic and inelastic spreading on nuclei with optical model fitting. Best understood are the muanic-atom-x-ray researches beginning with the lead-in 1953 paper with Val Fitch which initially developed the smaller proton charge radii of nuclei.
Starting in 1948, I taught an innovative nuclear physics graduate course. The Maria Mayer layer model tip in 1949 was a wonderful triumph and fitted my belief that a nuclear shell model should represent a proper strategy to understanding nuclear structure. Incorporated with developments of Weizsaker’s semi-empirical explanation of nuclear binding, and the Bohr-Wheeler 1939 paper on nuclear fission, emphasizing distorted nuclear shapes, I was prepared to see a description of large nuclear quadrupole moments. The full concept concerned me in late 1949 when going to a colloquium by Prof. C.H. Townes who explained the experimental circumstance for nuclear quadrupole minutes. It was a fortuitous situation made even more so by the fact that I was sharing a workplace with Aage Bohr that year. We had numerous discussions of the implications, subsequently very efficiently exploited by Bohr, Mottelson, and others of the Copenhagen Institute.
Since I joined the Columbia Physics Dept., in 1939, it has been my privilege to have as teachers and/or colleagues many previous Nobel Laureates in Physics: E. Fermi, I.I. Rabi, H. Bethe (Visiting Prof.), P. Kusch, W. Lamb, C.H. Townes, T.D. Lee and L. Cooper in addition to R.A. Milliken, C.D. Anderson, and T.H. Morgan (Biology) while I was an undergraduate at Cal Tech.