The main way wavelength affects light is it's color. You see, the shorter waves are colors like violet, whereas the longer waves are closer to red. Anything longer than red can not be seen by the human eye, as anything shorter than violet cannot be seen with our eyes.
In "short," yes. But only if you want to illuminate something with very small-scale features, like (magnified) baby's hair. You would see it more sharply under blue light than under longer-wavelength red.
For coarser-featured scenes, which include most every-day things, the wavelength of the illumination source, in itself, doesn't matter nearly as much as the color content of the scene. Example: if a scene has a lot of red in it, it will show up better ("apparent resolution") under red light than under blue light, simply because more of it will respond to the matching red light source. (Overall, most scenes show up best with white, or many wavelengthed, light.)
But something the width of a fine hair or smaller does better under blue light because the size of such things is in the ballpark of visible light's wavelength. For light to illuminate something, its wavelength should be NO LONGER than around one hundredth the width of the smallest feature (e.g., the tiny cracks or dents in a hair.) Here, the shorter the wavelength, the better.
Inverse relationship. As wavelength decreases then resolution increases and vice versa.
rule of thumb 1/2 the wavelength is the resolution
BOD is inversely proportional to COD
Some light wavelengths improve the rate of photosynthesis. The best colors for photosynthesis are blue and red while yellow is the worst.
There is a direct relationship; as the enzyme concentration increases, the rate of reaction increases.
Cells are of a small size because of consideration of the proportional relationship between surface area and volume. The size of cells also becomes a benefit when considering the rate at which cells die and are being replaced.
what is the relationship between soil and biotic factors.
The two are inversely proportional.
Wavelength and frequency are inversely proportional.
Frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength (higher frequency means a shorter wavelength). Frequency is directly proportional to the energy of the wave (higher frequencies correspond to higher energies).
The energy per photon is directly proportional to the frequency; the frequency is inversely proportional to the wavelength (since frequency x wavelength = speed of light, which is constant); thus, the energy per photon is inversely proportional to the wavelength.
-- Wavelength and frequency are inversely proportional. -- When you multiply them together, the product is the speed of the wave.
They are inversely proportional to each other.
Frequency and wavelength of the same wave are inversely proportional. Their product is always the same number . . . the speed of the wave.
Wavelength and frequency are inversely proportional. The higher the frequency, the shorter (lower) the wavelength. Energy is proportional to frequency, and higher frequency waves will have a higher energy. Mathematically, frequency = 1 divided by wavelength, or f = 1/λ Use the link below for more information, including a diagram or two to make things clearer.
The two are unrelated. In an electromagnetic wave, the photon's energy is directly proportional to the frequency, and thus inversely proportional to the wavelength, but that doesn't say anything about the total energy in the wave (which may consist of billions of photons).
If the ratio between each pair of values is the same then the relationship is proportional. If even one of the ratios is different then it is not proportional.
inversely proportional
They are inversely proportional. The shorter the wavelength, the higher the energy and vice versa. v=frequency; c=speed of light (~3x10^8 m/s); y=wavelength E=hv; v=c/y E=hc/y