Quick (dumb) idea..

[MyndFyre]

Wouldnt the resulting energy release from destroying that much matter/antimatter kill us all?

100kg is enough to move the earth a few centimeters.

I doubt it.  The energy could be harnessed and used.  That is, of course, assuming we get the dilithium crystals aligned. 

lol, trekkie.

If matter has mass and massive bodies are drawn towards each other, are anti-massive bodies repellant?

[rabbit]

No!  Anti-matter is a bad name.  It's just a different kind of matter that obliterates "normal" matter.

[iago]

No!  Anti-matter is a bad name.  It's just a different kind of matter that obliterates "normal" matter.

Like Oprah and Dunkin' Donuts?

[Nate]

No thats an overweight black woman consuming foods at an unhealthy rate.  While the donuts are obliterated, Oprah becomes more massive.

[Joe]

@MyndFyre: Anti-matter would better be named negative-matter. Just as positive repels positive and negative repels negative, matter attracts matter and antimatter attracts antimatter.

@rabbit: In the book Angels and Demons (don't start with the whole "that's just a book" thing, guys) they used strong electromagnets to keep the antimatter perfectly centered in a vaccuum inside of a glass container. It didn't annihilate until the battery died, but in the lab it was plugged in (the battery was for transportation).

[rabbit]

Joe, that's just a book.  And the electromagnetic field would keep all matter outside of the field?  Anti-matter annihilates ANY matter.  It would have to be in a vacuum.

[Super_X]

Joe, that's just a book.  And the electromagnetic field would keep all matter outside of the field?  Anti-matter annihilates ANY matter.  It would have to be in a vacuum.

Re-read his post.

[iago]

I could be wrong, but I don't think that we can make a perfect vacuum. 

[rabbit]

Too bad gravity effects objects in vacuum, and would pull the anti-matter towards the ground, and prior to hitting the ground it would hit the glass.  Not to mention the problem of having to sync of the acceleration of the entire vacuum and the anti-matter inside.  Ignoring the fact that the entire concept is physically impossible, there's no problem.

@iago: you're right.  A perfect vacuum can never be achieved.  Even in a vacuum particles and their opposites combine, explode, materialize, re-explode, etc... over and over.  Yay quantum physics.

[Nate]

@MyndFyre: Anti-matter would better be named negative-matter. Just as positive repels positive and negative repels negative, matter attracts matter and antimatter attracts antimatter.

That is wrong in so many ways.

[d&q]

I could be wrong, but I don't think that we can make a perfect vacuum. 

Isn't outer space a perfect vacuum?

[iago]

I could be wrong, but I don't think that we can make a perfect vacuum. 

Isn't outer space a perfect vacuum?

Firstly, I don't think we made outer space. 

Secondly, no, I'm pretty sure there's stuff in it.  For example, planets and stars and aliens. 

[d&q]

I was implying that we could experiment with vacuums in outer space. Isn't that one of the uses of the International Space Station?

[MyndFyre]

@MyndFyre: Anti-matter would better be named negative-matter. Just as positive repels positive and negative repels negative, matter attracts matter and antimatter attracts antimatter.

Ahh, but positive attracts negative, and since they release energy, at least in the ST universe, it seems matter attracts antimatter as well (otherwise the dilithium crystals wouldn't regulate the reaction, they'd sustain it). 

By the way, your analogy is self-contradictory.

[rabbit]

I could be wrong, but I don't think that we can make a perfect vacuum. 

Isn't outer space a perfect vacuum?

Firstly, I don't think we made outer space. 

Secondly, no, I'm pretty sure there's stuff in it.  For example, planets and stars and aliens. 

Correct on both counts, though there is a lot of stuff out there between the planets and stars and such.  There is an immense amount of dust and dark matter.  There is also an extremely large number of particles and the such.