Describe The Source Of Red Light Emitted From A Neon Sign

What is the speed of the light?

There are a lot of answers here that get to one point: a number, stated with certain units.That’s the value of the speed of light within that system of units, and no mistake.But what is it? I’m not a physicist, so I feel that a physicist who specialises in relativity can give you a more nuanced and detailed answer, but a way that I like to think of it is that the speed of light is a conversion ratio between distance and time.Indeed, it’s the distance that any massless particle (or what-have-you in quantum mechanics!) will travel in a unit of time in vacuum.As such, it’s a geometric thing, and in the frameworks of both special and general relativity, if [math]ds[/math] is a an infinitesimal spacetime interval, whose units are a distance, then the time component must have a conversion ratio in order to geometrise it and make its units compatible with the spatial components. That is why in special relativity, the spacetime metric is given as[math]\displaystyle{ds^2 = -c^2 dt^2 + dx^2 + xy^2 + dz^2}[/math].Since [math]ds[/math], [math]dx[/math] and so on have dimensions of length and [math]dt[/math] has dimensions of time, there must be a conversion factor (which is commonly denoted by [math]c[/math]) that has dimensions of length divided by time (speed). With the conversion factor in place, the units work out.But why the speed of light? Why not some other speed as a conversion factor?In the mechanics of relativity, because of the [math](-1,1,1,1)[/math] signature (the minus sign on the time component and the plus sign on the spatial components - though in general the choice is arbitrary, and some choose the signs to be the other way around, which perhaps makes a certain amount of sense, so that spacetime events that one can reach from one’s present have [math]ds^2 > 0[/math]), the sign of [math]ds^2[/math] can be positive or negative, depending on the total changes in displacement and time. Since one of the postulates of special relativity is that spatial homogeneity and isotropy, the conversion factor [math]c[/math] cannot depend on where or when you are, so it must be constant. So the conversion factor, which happens to be the speed at which all massless (non-inertial) things propagate, is exactly the rate of exchange between space and time for which the spacetime interval is zero.

Are electromagnetic waves and sound waves related?

Let's go over this, very briefly with just a couple points to note the likeness and similarities of the two.I first ask, do both have crystals? Yes, they do. The crystals have electrons that surround them. This filtrates your magnetic field. So both, similarly are Electromagnetic.  Magnon is the key term here I believe.Finally, phonons were  photons previously. Only a rearranging of atoms and distortion changed this. Atoms removed, added and put in a different order can change the parameters of physical boundaries, perception and distort our known reality. So, the frequency of the photon is disturbed, thus breaking its band gap and moving atoms to an ununified location. The vibration changes in the photon because the atoms must be uniform and equally proportionate. When even one atom is misplaced or freely moving, a phonon shall now exist in place of a photon.  The properties change following the obtrusion and the waves become close to opposite polarities, yet, once upon a time....they were both the same wave.

If you have two lasers, one blue and one red, both having 10 mW of power, will they emit the same number of photons per second?

energy of photon = hf = h c / (wave length)blue wavelength 475nm frequency 630 thzred wavelength 650nm frequency 460 thzh is planks constantnow blue light have more frequency means it's photon have more energy.blue photon have more energy then red photonso for same energy source red photons are more in number then blue photonred more no of photonblue less no of photon for same power source

Does the color of objects come from the elements it's made of?

Kind of.The emission process you're describing, where an element has a characteristic color, is how some (but not most) things get their color.  Mostly, emission is happening in things that glow: light bulbs, neon signs, candles, fireworks, the sun, jellyfish.Much more common is absorption, where you have white-colored light (that has every color in it) shining at something, and the object absorbs all the colors except for the one you see.  So a purple flower absorbs red, yellow, green, and blue, but reflects purple.  This is the case for most things: flowers, clothes, paint, dyes, M&Ms...Last is diffraction, where something takes light that has a bunch of colors (like sunlight) and separates them out.  This happens in rainbows, prisms, iridescent beetles, and opal.Diffraction is a bit of an oddball here, because usually it's not about what the object is actually made of, but how it's microscopically structured.  That's why you don't see rainbows in a lake, but you do when the same water is in tiny droplets in mist or rain.Now here's the catch: more often than not, the atoms aren't actually doing the work in emission and absorption.  Just like atoms have characteristic emission/absorption colors, molecules do too.  Bonding atoms together can drastically change their colors.  So the green in a leaf isn't from what elements are in that leaf (it's mostly boring hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon), but because the leaf has a lot of the molecule chlorophyll, which happens to absorb red and blue a lot but not much green. So say if you're designing a new dye, it's just a matter of finding the molecule (or mixture of molecules) that absorb the right colors.  Before modern chemistry, though, that could be really hard: Tyrian purple is a reasonably simple molecule, but in ancient times it could only be found in sea snails, making it so expensive only royalty could afford it.

Does the Big Bang theory really make sense? How could a random germ that appeared out of nowhere after an explosion be an evolved version of every living organism on this planet?

Q: Does the "Big Bang" theory really make sense? How could a random germ that appeared out of nowhere after an explosion be an evolved version of every living organism on this planet?A: You are mixing three different and completely unrelated fields of study into one thing that you have mistakenly labelled “Big Bang theory”. This is a common mistake among in particular Creationists who are parroting their religious peers’ critique of anything that isn’t in their holy scripture of choice.The Big Bang Theory only explains how the universe developed from the very minuscule and hot state to the present incredibly vast and cold state. It says nothing of how life appeared. It doesn’t even say how planets appeared and barely anything about how stars appeared. It is based on observations from astronomy, predicted in general relativity and quantum mechanics, and well-supported by observations of cosmological redshift and the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.Abiogenesis is the study of how life appeared, and consists of several hypotheses. It never starts with a “random germ”. Popular hypotheses include the RNA world in which RNA – which is a chain of a simple sugar molecule on which nucleic acids attach themselves, all of which can appear naturally; the protein world, in which amino acids – which also can appear naturally – polymerise and self replicate; and the lipid world, in which fatty acids form bubbles separating the chemistry of the inside of the bubble from the outside, and also start self-replicating. There is experimental and observational support for all these (and more), and it is plausible that all of these actually happened and reinforced one another.The Theory of Evolution starts with life, and posits that if you have offspring with inheritance, and there is variation among the offspring, and it is less likely that the less well-adapted offspring gets a chance of producing their own offspring, and if this goes on for generations, then you will have speciation. It says nothing about the origin of life, and absolutely nothing about the origin of the universe. The Modern Synthesis of Evolution adds specific mechanisms on how this inheritance and variation happens, through the discovery of DNA, Mendelian inheritance, mutations, genetic drift, sexual variation and so on. It is also massively supported on experimental and observational evidence.