This question continues from my another question How to understand critical points of the Brillouin zone, (in)direct bands of transition-metal dichalcogenides?, and is related to Is crystal momentum really momentum?.
My understanding of crystal momentum is that it is the usual momentum modulo something, that is why it takes values only in the Brillouin zone. Meanwhile crystal momentum takes discrete values, which is for other reasons. We are talking about phonons which are the quantum version of vibrations, so the momentum (as well as the momentum modulo sth), energy, etc. of phonons are discrete.
We consider crystal momentum instead of momentum, because the translational symmetry is broken and therefore the momentum $\mu$ is not conserved. But since the crystal is still symmetric with respect to translations of $p*a, \forall p\in \mathbb{Z}$ where $a$ is a constant length, ($\mu \mod \frac{2\pi}a$) is conserved (as said below to be a non-strict application of Noether theorem (I am not familiar with this theorem)), we define crystal momentum for convenience, as ($\mu \mod \frac{2\pi}a$).
$\\$
$\\$
The discussion of symmetry here is similar to that in Xiao-Liang Qi and Shou-Cheng Zhang, 2010, Topological insulators and superconductors.
$\\$
$\\$
My questions are
- Why translational symmetry is the prerequisite of momentum conservation?
- When we talk about translational symmetry, what space is being discussed? For example, when we talk about crystals, the potential function $V(x)$ doesn't have translational symmetry (except for certain translations). For me, the crystal is 'embedded' in $\mathbb{R}^3$, which certainly has translational symmetry. So the space being discussed must involve potential or Hamiltonian function or a scalar field, etc.? In other words, we are actually talking about the symmetry of a field in the space?
- Are the discussion of translational symmetry here similar to (or part of) the discussion of symmetry breaking and effective field theory (I am not familiar with these concepts either) in Qi's paper? If yes, why? (Since the paper says the theory is a universal description of quantum states except for quantum Hall..., the answer seems to be yes.)