Units of mass used: gigaelectronvolts (implicitly times c²), solar masses
Units of length used: centimetres, megaparsecs
When measuring the whole universe it's hard to pick a scale. Anyway astrophysicists are the worst for this. The rest of science is happy with SI(, or sometimes naturalized units when you're doing theory and dealing with integer qualities and numbers that you don't care about). But in astrophysics brightness is measured on a scale set by one of the Ptolemys looking at stars and literally eyeballing it. They'll measure mass in terms of energy, energy in "ergs" and do some godawful mix of imperial, metric and miscellaneous that makes electric charge something comparable to square root of energy times length.
40 rods to the hogshead is 0.00198 miles per gallon (or 504 gallons per mile). Actually that is low even for a container ship but it is at least in the same ballpark.
I prefer to give fuel efficiency in fuel used for a given distance rather than distance for a given amount of fuel.
My car's fuel efficiency is 23 picoacres or 9.3 picohectares.
TLDR; "If you took all the gas you burned on a trip and stretched it out into a thin tube along your route, 0.1 square millimeters would be the cross-sectional area of that tube."
Pardon me, but I believe this would be a "point of information" (aka request) rather than a "point of order" which should refer to a procedural matter rather than factual.
And I guess the realistic interpretation of this is the cross section of a tube of gasoline that was laid down the road that could keep your engine fed without a tank.
Even better you can replace your fuel injector with a scoop at the front of the car and drive forward along the fuel tube for a sort of JIT fuelling option.
"Everything" in the universe, ever, on a lovely Size vs. Mass log-log plot. Sci News' article is quite brief - check the American Journal of Physics article, linked at the end, for more.
I studied physics (I wasn’t very smart) but it surprised me that the charge radius of protons and neutrons are smaller than that of electrons! Cool plot.
Why is it "Forbidden by Gravity" but the "sub-Plankian unknown"? I thought that the Plank length was a hard limit like the speed of light. Is that not true, and there theoretically are unknown features smaller than that?
Plank length is not a hard limit the same way speed of light is. Plank length is where we expect our current models to start producing nonsense, though we fully expect that 'things can happen at smaller than plank length'. The expectation is that there exists some future model that produces meaningful predictions at sub-plank length.
Whereas for speed of light, we currently expect no future models to produce meaningful faster than light predictions, and we fully expect to never find evidence of faster than light predictions.
Units of length used: centimetres, megaparsecs
When measuring the whole universe it's hard to pick a scale. Anyway astrophysicists are the worst for this. The rest of science is happy with SI(, or sometimes naturalized units when you're doing theory and dealing with integer qualities and numbers that you don't care about). But in astrophysics brightness is measured on a scale set by one of the Ptolemys looking at stars and literally eyeballing it. They'll measure mass in terms of energy, energy in "ergs" and do some godawful mix of imperial, metric and miscellaneous that makes electric charge something comparable to square root of energy times length.