The Navier-Stokes equations are as follows,


$$\dot{u}+(u\cdot \nabla ) u +\nu \nabla^2 u =\nabla p$$


where $u$ is the velocity field, $\nu$ is the viscosity, and $p$ is the pressure.


Some elementary manipulations show that if you zoom in by a factor of $\lambda$, then you expect viscosity to scale as $\lambda^{\frac{3}{2}}$. So, for example, if you zoom in to the length scale of a cell, you expect viscosity to be around a million times larger than humans experience it.


This is not observed, however, which makes sense since we expect the components of a cell to move around extremely quickly. (EDIT: this is observed - see answer - my initial google searches were untrustworthy, damn google). Nonetheless, the calculation above suggests that they feel like they are moving through one of the most viscous fluids imaginable.


What then is the mechanism that prevents this? I have seen some explanations through the ideas of 'microviscosity' and 'macroviscosity' in the physics community, but I couldn't find much of a theoretic backing for them.


I'm wondering if there is a more mathematical explanation, perhaps directly from the Navier-Stokes equation itself (seems unlikely), or something from a kinetic theory point of view? For example some kind of statistical model of water molecules that reproduces the result?



Should water at the scale of a cell feel more like tar?
There is a beautiful article (a write-up of a talk, actually), by E.M. Purcell, [Life at low Reynolds number](https://science.curie.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Purcell_life_at_low_reynolds_number_1977.pdf), that explains how bacteria swim.


Low Reynolds number is the technical way to phrase the statement in the OP that motion at that scale feels like moving in a tar pit. The governing equation is the linearized Navier-Stokes equation, a.k.a. the Stokes equation, which lacks the inertial $v\nabla v$ term. The linearity of the Stokes equation means that the swimming technique which we would use, moving arms or legs back and forth, will not work. Purcell calls this the "scallop theorem": opening and closing the shells of a scallop will just move the object back and forth, without net forward motion.  

Inertia can still play a role on short time scales, as explained in [Emergency cell swimming.](https://www.pnas.org/content/108/19/7655)


The way bacteria move in the absence of inertia is the way a corkscrew enters a material upon turning, the cork screw being the flagellum. In fact, any nonsymmetrical object, when turned will propagate in a tar pit. Typical velocities are $1$ mm/min, as Purcell says: *"Motion at low Reynolds number is very majestic, slow, and regular."*


Here is a visualization of a sperm cell moving by rotating its flagellum (published just this week in [Science Advances](https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/31/eaba5168)).


![](https://ilorentz.org/beenakker/MO/sperm.gif)
Note that the rotation is only clearly visible in three dimensions. Two-dimensional projections suggest a beating motion (first reported by Van Leeuwenhoek in the 17th century), which is not an effective means of propagation at low Reynolds number.


