<p>In addition to the answer quoted by @UV-D, gravity affects the height of mountains composed of loose material (e.g. sand, volcanic ash). In a pile of loose material, the height is determined by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_repose">angle of repose</a>, i.e. the steepest angle at which material will stay in place rather than roll down the sides of the mountain. This angle depends on gravity. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-14T15:49:32.330Z
Nice point, though: 1) Would be great to see at least some quantitative discussion, 2) Mountains tend to be tectonic, not sandy in nature
Alexey Bobrick
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-14T23:11:33.443Z
I agree with @AlexeyBobrick, I don't think this actually answers my question.  It's unlikely that there will be a mountain of loose material that rivals the height of the solar system's highest mountains.  Can you link to any evidence that gravity affects the height of actual mountains?
Fezter
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-14T13:03:27.020Z
2013-11-14T13:03:27.020Z
Hobbes
<p>For those who wanted a complete mathematical answer and were also dissatisfied with the previous answers, see answers to <a href="https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/q/9745/6031">How high can a mountain possibly get?</a> in Earth Science SE.</p>
<p>I adjusted a few numbers in the linked equation to more accurately reflect compression strength and density of granite (<span class="math-container">$2.5 \times 10^8$</span> and <span class="math-container">$2.75 \times 10^3$</span> respectively).</p>
<p>A quick 'n dirty equation to determine max height for any planet with a granite mountain:</p>
<p><span class="math-container">$$H(g) = 0.909 \times 10^5 / g$$</span></p>
<p>Some quick maths:</p>
<p>max height of a (granite) <strong>mountain on Mars (1/3 earth g): 24.5km</strong> (incredible! - mount olympus close at 21.9km)</p>
<p>max height of a (granite) <strong>mountain on Earth: 9.3km</strong> (Everest is close at 8.8km)</p>
<p>max height of a (granite) <strong>mountain on Kepler-452b (2 earth g): 4.8km</strong> (pathetic!)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-23T06:56:49.567Z
This is a really helpful answer! I would be even better if you mentioned the units that the numbers use.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-23T08:17:45.980Z
See also this other question at Earth Science SE: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/q/20242/18081
Jean-Marie Prival
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-09-23T00:00:23.273Z
2021-09-23T06:56:24.343Z
2021-09-23T06:56:24.343Z
Anonymous
<p>Yes, gravity definitely affects the maximum heigh of mountains.</p>

<p>Think on a solid bar of steel. It sticks straight because of the electronic forces. But when you make it larger and larger gravity makes it bend: gravity starts being considerable, but still smaller than electronic forces.</p>

<p>If you make the bar larger, there will be a moment in which the weight of the whole bar will be larger than the short-range electronic force: your bar will break purely due to gravity.</p>

<p>Exactly the same happens to mountains made of solid rock (as opposed to sedimentary ones quoted by Hobbes). There is a point,k depending on the strenght of planetary gravity, where it takes over short-range electronic forces, making the mountain collapse.</p>

<p>This is exactly the force that "rounds up" the planets, as opposed to the non-spherical asteroids.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-22T17:48:25.513Z
2013-11-22T17:48:25.513Z
Envite
<p>Yes, gravity plays a role in how high mountains can get.
Additionally, the chemisty via the strength and elasticity of the material of the lithosphere plays a role how mountains can get.</p>
<p>The word to look for is &quot;<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostasy" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Isostasy</a>&quot;. There's two basic processes howThis is a common problem in geophysics, especially in gravimetry where these give information about the crust and upper mantle.</p>
<p>Assuming that gravity at the surface and near the surface is relatively constant for any given terrestrial planet, the weight which needs to be supported by the basement rock due to a mountain depends on both, the size (mass) of the mountain as well as the acting gravity. Thus for a planet with a smaller surface gravity a larger mountain can be supported without the underlaying material cracking or being compressed or slowly being pushed away resulting in the mountain subsiding slowly until it is (again) in equilibrium with the strength of the material it rests on.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-22T14:01:28.870Z
2020-10-22T14:01:28.870Z
planetmaker
<p>The mountains actually form as a result of the tectonic plates' movement at the earth mantle. Suggesting that a new mountain would be formed tomorrow, during the tectonic activity rock from the mantle and above moves upwards, only the tip of the newly formed mountain would consist of sediments like sand or soil. </p>

<p>So, I don't think that the gravity or mass of a planet affects the mountains' height. </p>

<p>Plus, Earth is the only known planet to be affected by plate tectonics. So, the 'birth' mechanisms must be a lot different and cannot be compared with the ones' acting on our planet.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-20T19:16:35.357Z
"Earth is the only known planet to be affected by plate tectonics" - do you have a reference for this?
Alexey Bobrick
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-21T18:27:47.610Z
Trust me I'm a geologist!

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/egeo2/content/ch02/article_2.htm
Nikos
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-21T19:38:01.733Z
Sounds trustable! Though, it is not clear, why wouldn't gravity affect either mountains as we know them on the Earth (Earth-like planets), or mountain-like structures on other types of planets.
Alexey Bobrick
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-22T20:19:11.953Z
I wanted to make clear that earth's mountains are not the same as other planets' mountains, thus they can't be compared.
Nikos
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-24T13:32:27.100Z
It does not matter which the birth mechanisms are in order to assert if there is a maximum size. While I agree with you in that mountaingenesys mechanisms are very different on a techtonic planet like Earth than in a non-techtonic one like Mars, basic Physics are the same. For planets with same radious, that one with bigger gravity will be more round, that is, mountains will have smaller maximum possible (note possible does not mean actual) height.
Envite
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-24T21:01:21.250Z
Pluto is smaller than Earth->less gravity. Where are the enormous mountains?
Nikos
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-20T00:27:10.873Z
2013-11-20T00:27:10.873Z
Nikos
<p>According to this <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mountains_on_Mars_by_height">Wikipedia page</a>, the top five highest mountains on Mars (and the highest on Venus) are all taller than Mount Everest (and Mauna Kea as measured from the ocean floor).</p>

<p>Does a planet's mass or gravity affect the height of it's mountains?  Is there an upper limit that a mountain can reach given the mass or gravity of a planet?  </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-14T00:22:14.363Z
An interesting / relevant aside: http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1091
Moriarty
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-11-14T15:48:15.263Z
@UV-D: The question is good, and the answer you are pointing at is also good. However, the latter is given for a different question. There is just a bare minimum of useful information there on the matter.
Alexey Bobrick
<planet><gravity><mass>
Does a planet's mass or gravity affect the height of it's mountains?
Fezter
# Does a planet's mass or gravity affect the height of it's mountains?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-11-13)

According to this [Wikipedia page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mountains_on_Mars_by_height), the top five highest mountains on Mars (and the highest on Venus) are all taller than Mount Everest (and Mauna Kea as measured from the ocean floor).

Does a planet's mass or gravity affect the height of it's mountains? Is there an upper limit that a mountain can reach given the mass or gravity of a planet?

**Tags:** planet, gravity, mass
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: An interesting / relevant aside: http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1091  
> **username_2**: @UV-D: The question is good, and the answer you are pointing at is also good. However, the latter is given for a different question. There is just a bare minimum of useful information there on the matter.  

---

## 5 answers

### Answer by username_7 on 2013-11-22. Score: 8

Yes, gravity definitely affects the maximum heigh of mountains.

Think on a solid bar of steel. It sticks straight because of the electronic forces. But when you make it larger and larger gravity makes it bend: gravity starts being considerable, but still smaller than electronic forces.

If you make the bar larger, there will be a moment in which the weight of the whole bar will be larger than the short-range electronic force: your bar will break purely due to gravity.

Exactly the same happens to mountains made of solid rock (as opposed to sedimentary ones quoted by Hobbes). There is a point,k depending on the strenght of planetary gravity, where it takes over short-range electronic forces, making the mountain collapse.

This is exactly the force that "rounds up" the planets, as opposed to the non-spherical asteroids.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2013-11-14. Score: 7

In addition to the answer quoted by @UV-D, gravity affects the height of mountains composed of loose material (e.g. sand, volcanic ash). In a pile of loose material, the height is determined by the [angle of repose](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_repose), i.e. the steepest angle at which material will stay in place rather than roll down the sides of the mountain. This angle depends on gravity.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Nice point, though: 1) Would be great to see at least some quantitative discussion, 2) Mountains tend to be tectonic, not sandy in nature  
> **username_0**: I agree with @AlexeyBobrick, I don't think this actually answers my question.  It's unlikely that there will be a mountain of loose material that rivals the height of the solar system's highest mountains.  Can you link to any evidence that gravity affects the height of actual mountains?  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2021-09-23. Score: 7

For those who wanted a complete mathematical answer and were also dissatisfied with the previous answers, see answers to [How high can a mountain possibly get?](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/q/9745/6031) in Earth Science SE.

I adjusted a few numbers in the linked equation to more accurately reflect compression strength and density of granite ($2.5 \times 10^8$ and $2.75 \times 10^3$ respectively).

A quick 'n dirty equation to determine max height for any planet with a granite mountain:

$$H(g) = 0.909 \times 10^5 / g$$

Some quick maths:

max height of a (granite) **mountain on Mars (1/3 earth g): 24.5km** (incredible! - mount olympus close at 21.9km)

max height of a (granite) **mountain on Earth: 9.3km** (Everest is close at 8.8km)

max height of a (granite) **mountain on Kepler-452b (2 earth g): 4.8km** (pathetic!)

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: This is a really helpful answer! I would be even better if you mentioned the units that the numbers use.  
> **username_6**: See also this other question at Earth Science SE: https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/q/20242/18081  

---

### Answer by username_8 on 2020-10-22. Score: 2

Yes, gravity plays a role in how high mountains can get.
Additionally, the chemisty via the strength and elasticity of the material of the lithosphere plays a role how mountains can get.

The word to look for is "[Isostasy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostasy)". There's two basic processes howThis is a common problem in geophysics, especially in gravimetry where these give information about the crust and upper mantle.

Assuming that gravity at the surface and near the surface is relatively constant for any given terrestrial planet, the weight which needs to be supported by the basement rock due to a mountain depends on both, the size (mass) of the mountain as well as the acting gravity. Thus for a planet with a smaller surface gravity a larger mountain can be supported without the underlaying material cracking or being compressed or slowly being pushed away resulting in the mountain subsiding slowly until it is (again) in equilibrium with the strength of the material it rests on.


---

### Answer by username_9 on 2013-11-20. Score: -1

The mountains actually form as a result of the tectonic plates' movement at the earth mantle. Suggesting that a new mountain would be formed tomorrow, during the tectonic activity rock from the mantle and above moves upwards, only the tip of the newly formed mountain would consist of sediments like sand or soil.

So, I don't think that the gravity or mass of a planet affects the mountains' height.

Plus, Earth is the only known planet to be affected by plate tectonics. So, the 'birth' mechanisms must be a lot different and cannot be compared with the ones' acting on our planet.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: "Earth is the only known planet to be affected by plate tectonics" - do you have a reference for this?  
> **username_9**: Trust me I'm a geologist!  http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/egeo2/content/ch02/article_2.htm  
> **username_2**: Sounds trustable! Though, it is not clear, why wouldn't gravity affect either mountains as we know them on the Earth (Earth-like planets), or mountain-like structures on other types of planets.  
> **username_9**: I wanted to make clear that earth's mountains are not the same as other planets' mountains, thus they can't be compared.  
> **username_7**: It does not matter which the birth mechanisms are in order to assert if there is a maximum size. While I agree with you in that mountaingenesys mechanisms are very different on a techtonic planet like Earth than in a non-techtonic one like Mars, basic Physics are the same. For planets with same radious, that one with bigger gravity will be more round, that is, mountains will have smaller maximum possible (note possible does not mean actual) height.  
> **username_9**: Pluto is smaller than Earth->less gravity. Where are the enormous mountains?  

---

