I hope no one is vexed by this side comment and proceeds to declare me out of the mainstream for mentioning it
but I will take that risk.
In natural units (c=G=hbar=1) the sun's mass is 93E36
and a million miles is E44.
the formula for the angle is simply 4M/R radians
But 4M is 37E37
So, if a ray of light passes a million miles from the sun's center,
it is bent by the angle you get by dividing 37E37 by E44.
37E37/E44 = 37E-7 radians-------3.7E-6-----3.7 microradians
It seems to me that natural units, which so many physicists use nowadays in research and theoretical papers, actually help here by making the formula 4M/R so much simpler. It is a mess to do
the formula in metric with numbers like 6.673E-11 for G and so on.
**********
There is a side issue of how did I know the mass of the sun is 93E36.
that is easy to remember if you can remember that the distance to it is 93 million miles.
Because in natural units M=RV
2, where R is the radius of a small object's circular orbit and V is the orbit speed. In the case of the Earth (small, in roughly circular orbit) V = E-4 and R=93E44 (93 million miles) so the mass of the sun is quick to compute just by multiplying
M = RV
2 = 93E44 x E-8 = 93E36
Again you quite possibly cannot remember the mass of the sun in kilograms and would probably not like to calculate it from what you do know about distance and orbit speed because it would involve messy numbers like 6.673E-11 for G and so on. So natural units are somewhat more practical in this context.
As well as increasingly mainstream (some
John Baez discussion on Usenet bears on this)
But if you can remember the mass of the sun in kilograms then of course go ahead and use the metric formula for the angle mentioned earlier
angle = 4GM/c^2R
instead of 4M/R