Is there a limit to how high a mountain can be due to gravity?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ravachol
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether there is a limit to how high a mountain can be due to the effects of gravity. Participants explore theoretical and practical aspects of mountain height, including geological and physical principles, as well as comparisons with mountains on other celestial bodies.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant mentions having read that mountains cannot exceed 15,000 meters due to gravity, seeking clarification on this claim.
  • Another participant suggests calculating the pressure at the base of a mountain by assuming a column of material equal to the mountain's height.
  • A participant notes that the tallest known mountain, Mauna Kea, is about 9,700 meters, with a significant portion underwater, and compares it to Mars' Olympus Mons, which is approximately 27,000 meters high, suggesting that differences in gravity may play a role.
  • There is a proposal to calculate the pressure at the bottom of a rock column and compare it to the compressive yield strength of that rock to assess height limits.
  • One participant raises a consideration about the behavior of rock under pressure, suggesting that if the material at the base of a mountain breaks, it could eject sideways, potentially affecting the mountain's stability and height. They speculate that a mountain with a gentle slope could theoretically rise much higher than one with a steep slope.
  • The same participant questions whether the compression of material could eventually lead to it turning into a liquid, which might impose additional limits on height.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints and hypotheses regarding the limits of mountain height, with no consensus reached on a definitive answer. The discussion includes both supportive and questioning perspectives on the implications of geological principles and gravity.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the need to consider factors such as erosion, geological principles, and the compressive yield strength of materials, which may influence the theoretical limits of mountain height. However, these factors remain unresolved in the discussion.

ravachol
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
i've read sth like there cannot be a mountain higher than 15000 meters because of the gravity. this was like a do you know statements in magazines.
is there anyone knows sth about that
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try to calculate the pressure at the base of a mountain. Assume a column of material as high as your mountain.
 
The tallest mountain we know of is Hawaii's Mauna Kea at ~9700 meters. Of course, about 5000 of those meters are under the Pacific Ocean. Mars' largest mountain comes in at 27000 meters, which does roughly scale with the difference in gravity. Of course, we're not considering the effects of erosion (or really any geologic principles).

The approximation suggested seems correct. Using the density of a particular rock, calculate the pressure at the bottom of a column and compare that to the known compressive yield strength of that particular rock.
 
Last edited:
luckycharms said:
The approximation suggested seems correct. Using the density of a particular rock, calculate the pressure at the bottom of a column and compare that to the known compressive yield strength of that particular rock.

But when we think about a column of rock, when the material at the bottom breaks, it has somewhere to go. It ejects material sideways. In a mountain, the column is surrounded by other rocks, thus helping to hold it up since any broken material has nowhere to go. I suppose if the mountain were large enough the sideways force could break the rock at the outer regions of the base of the mountain, where the columns would be of much reduced height. Or is this not a consideration, or maybe it wouldn't change the estimate by much? I'd just think that a mountain with a gentle slope on it's sides could rise much higher than a mountain with a steep slope, for the reason described above. Given a sufficiently gentle slope, I'd expect the height to be nearly unlimited, unless the compression turned everything to liquid.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K