Would it? I admit I'm not all that hot in physics but I think it'd be the other way round...
Well, molecular bonds are energy after all, and if you break the molecular bond you get released energy, a lot of which would probably be in the form of heat.
Destructionator XIII seems to disagree. I suggest you take it up with him.
How pray tell does removing part of said neurotransmitters do that? And how does the phaser know to only affect neurotransmitters and where to find them? It's not like stun needs a CNS hit...
I'm not particularly knowledgeable about biochemistry, but I think the nervous system is most sensitive to damage. If you start randomly beaming away pieces of long biomolecules you mess up a lot of the metabolic processes. I'd think the nervous system would be particularly sensitive to that.
Absolutely. Yet somehow stun almost exclusively results in stun as opposed to the serious nervous system damage that should accur. And that still doesn't explain how a stun hit anywhere
will affect the nervous system but nothing else
Downside would be that it would be very easy to do lasting damage to the brain that way (that might explain the lethal stun to the head from ST:VI).
Which was explicitely stated to be range dependent. Explain this with transporter phasers.
Either it's functionally a transporter or it is not. If it IS, you need to explain why it's the only one in Trek with a visible beam.
My theory is that the phaser beam is basically the same phenomenon as the sparkle effect you see when a person gets beamed up.
At that point, the transporter beam has already 'hit'. Different phenomenon.
The sparkle effect is the transporter first locking onto a discrete object and then disintegrating it.
Explaining phaserisation visuals, not the beam.
The phaser beam is an uncontrolled disintegration effect already going on, with no discrete target.
Phaserisation of air in the path of the beam, if I get you right?
I think I get where you're going but you're still wrong. Transporter beams are routinely seen to propagate much faster than that because every time someone is beamed up from a planet to a ship in orbit, the transporter beam needs to traverse this distance to initiate transport in the first place.
But there's a difference there. A phaser beam isn't actually being targeted in the same way a transporter is. A phaser beam is just disintegrating the air as it goes, and you're hoping while it's at it it'll also reach far enough to hit that Jem Hadar/Romulan/Klingon in front of you. Unlike a transporter there's no lock on the target.
So you're claiming the beam is slowed down by having to disintegrate the air in its way, did I get this right?
One then wonders why it does so at a large variety of different speeds, and is STILL clearly visible in vacuum
No such problem ever witnessed in transporters. A ton of steel does not seem to be any harder to transport than a ton of water.
Because a transporter uses the ship's power for disintegration/reintegration, and they can increase power as necessary.
And there's no evidence whatsoever that they do so. Never ever mentioned throughout 24 seasons and 10 movies worth of Trek.
Once a phaser has been fired the only disintegration energy is what was put in the beam, which is nonrenewable and being continuously used up as the target disintegrates.
Which, as Slartibartfast pointed out, never
happens with transporters. Once the transporter beam stops, so does the disintegration.