WaterToFire wrote:I know it was a joke, but I'm gonna comment on it anyway. I'm fairly certain that anti matter will never become an energy source because it takes more energy to produce than we can get out of it. The only way (to my knowledge) we have access to anti matter is by putting stupendous amounts of energy into regular particles and blasting them apart, so that they turn into new stuff. Only a part of that new matter is anti matter, so reacting that again for energy is always going to cost us something. Unless we find a source of ready made anti matter, that's kind of like pouring water in a bucket, using the water to turn a water wheel, and then generating electricity to power a motor that dumps the water back into the bucket.
Well, yes, of course - antimatter isn't a very efficient energy source. It is, however, a very very dense energy source - several orders of magnitude denser (in terms of MJ/g) than anything else I'm aware of, and on the order of a billion times denser than any chemical reaction. That's important if you are mass and/or volume constrained. If you want an energy weapon on a small drone, it's a damn good fuel (well, as long as you can get a bit more than 38 atoms, and the containment isn't too huge, and you can convert the energy to a useful form, and so on.)
This is all mostly joking, of course - I know we're no where near an antimatter economy - but it's neat to think about.