 detectors in space by an amount $\bm x_0/2$. In other words, a local phase change of the squeezing amplitude effects a translation of the points in space near which it is easier for the detectors to harvest entanglement. However, such a local phase change of $\zeta$ also effects a translation of its Fourier transform: namely $\bar\zeta(\bm x)\rightarrow \bar \zeta(\bm x-\bm x_0)$. Note that the discrepancy by a factor of 2 between the amount that the preferred points are translated ($\bm x_0/2$) and the amount that the Fourier transform $\bar\zeta$ is shifted by ($\bm x_0$) can be removed by choosing a different convention for the exponent in the definition  of a Fourier transform. Therefore we conclude that (up to a potential re-scaling) the Fourier transform of the field’s squeezing amplitude $\zeta$ directly tells us where in space the UDW detectors should be centered if they want to harvest more entanglement from the squeezed field state. These preferred locations are commensurate with where the fluctuations of the field amplitude, and the stress energy density, are localized in space.

Having expounded the dependence of the detectors’ center of mass on their ability to harvest entanglement from a squeezed field state, and having related this to the local phase of the squeezing amplitude, let us now turn to the question of how the *magnitude* of the squeezing amplitude affects the detector’s abilities to harvest entanglement.

In Fig. \[fig:neg\_vs\_r\] we plot the negativity of a UDW detector pair as a function of $\zeta(\bm k)=r$, which we once again assume to be uniform across all field modes. We notice several interesting features from these plots.

Interestingly, high squeezing can remove the dependence of entanglement harvesting on the distance between the detectors. Indeed, we find that while at low squeezing amplitude the amount of entanglement that the detectors can harvest depends on their spatial separation $d:=|\bm x_\textsc{a}-\bm x_\textsc{b}|$, at high squeezing this is not the case. In other words, in the limit of large uniform squeezing of the field, a detector pair separated by a large spatial distance will harvest the same amount of entanglement as if they were at the same location in space. A similar effect of removal of the distance scale in a setup where vacuum entanglement is relevant was seen in [@Hotta2014] where quantum energy teleportation could be made independent of separation between
detectors in space by an amount $ \bm x_0/2$. In other actor's line, a local phase variety of the squeezing amplitude effects a transformation of the points in distance near which it is easier for the detector to harvest entanglement. However, such a local phase variety of $ \zeta$ besides effects a translation of its Fourier transform: namely $ \bar\zeta(\bm x)\rightarrow \bar \zeta(\bm x-\bm x_0)$. notice that the discrepancy by a factor of 2 between the amount that the favored point are translated ($ \bm x_0/2 $) and the amount that the Fourier transform $ \bar\zeta$ is shifted by ($ \bm x_0 $) can be removed by choose a different convention for the exponent in the definition    of a Fourier transform. consequently we conclude that (up to a potential rhenium - scaling) the Fourier transform of the battlefield ’s squeezing amplitude $ \zeta$ directly tells us where in space the UDW detectors should be center if they want to harvest more entanglement from the squeezed field state. These preferred locations are commensurate with where the fluctuations of the field amplitude, and the stress energy density, are localized in space. 

 Having expounded the dependence of the detectors ’ center field of mass on their ability to harvest web from a squeezed sphere department of state, and having related this to the local phase of the squeezing amplitude, let us now turn to the question of how the * magnitude * of the squeeze amplitude affects the detector ’s abilities to harvest entanglement. 

 In Fig.   \[fig: neg\_vs\_r\ ] we plot the negativity of a UDW detector pair as a function of $ \zeta(\bm k)=r$, which we once again assume to be uniform across all field modes. We detect several interesting feature of speech from these plots. 

 Interestingly, high squeezing can remove the dependence of web harvesting on the distance between the detectors. Indeed, we find that while at low squeezing amplitude the amount of entanglement that the detectors can harvest count on their spatial separation $ d:=|\bm x_\textsc{a}-\bm x_\textsc{b}|$, at gamey squeezing this is not the case. In early words, in the limit of large uniform squeezing of the plain, a detector pair separate by a large spatial distance will harvest the same amount of entanglement as if they were at the like location in space. A similar impression of removal of the distance scale in a setup where vacuum entanglement is relevant was seen in [ @Hotta2014 ] where quantum energy teleportation could be made autonomous of separation between
 dehectors in space by an aoount $\bm x_0/2$. In ojhwr worvs, a lodal phasd change of the squeezing am'lityde edfects a translation ow the poijts in space bear which it is easier rlr tke detectors to marvest entdnglement. Howeeef, duch a local phase change of $\zeta$ ajso effrchs a translatijn og its Fourier transform: namely $\bar\zeta(\bj x)\righuarrow \bar \zeta(\bm c-\bm x_0)$. Note that the discreoancj by a factor of 2 hetween the amotbt that the oreferred konnts are trznslated ($\bm x_0/2$) and the amount thxt thz Fourier ttcbsfltm $\bar\zeta$ iw shisted by ($\bm x_0$) can be semoved by choosing a dihferwnt convention for thx exponent in the desinition  mf a Fourier transfirn. Thetefora we xonzluse tgat (up to a potentizl re-scalint) the Fourier transgown of the fiels’s squqesing amplitude $\zeta$ directly tells us wvers in space the UDW detextors should be centeted if ther want to harvest more entanglement from the squeazed hidld sbate. Rhfse preferred locations are commensurate with shtre the fluctuatijns of the giflc amplitude, ana the strsss energy density, are losalizwd in spase.

Hafing expounded the dependenxe of the denectirs’ center of mass on their ayility to hsrvest entanglement froo a aqueezed fifld state, xnd having relatdd nhis to the local phase of the squeezinj ampkitude, uet os now eurn to thf question of how the *mahnitube* of the squeexing amplitude affects the detervor’s abilitiex do varvest zntangkement.

In Fig. \[fyg:neg\_vs\_r\] we plpt the uegatixity of a LDW detecvor pair as w function of $\eeta(\bm k)=r$, whirh we oncq agqin qssume gu be uniform avross all field modws. We notice severel ivferesting featuxts drom these plotx.

Ingerqsninjly, hych squeezing can reopve tfe dependenge uf emtanglement harvestitg oh the distance beteecn the dejectors. Igdeed, we find that while at low squexzing emplitide the amount of entanglement thzt the dehecbors can harvqst eepends on tkeir spatial separation $d:=|\bm x_\textsc{a}-\bm x_\vextsc{b}|$, at high squeezibg this is not the eaxe. In other wordf, in the nimit of large unifoem squeezing of tme field, a detector pajr sepdratef by a large spatial distance will harvest the same amount of entanglemenr as ih ehey were af thr samv ljeation yn s'are. A similar effebt of removal of the distance scele in a satbp where vacuum entanglement os relevant was seen in [@Hotta2014] where quahtum enetgy teleportation could be made independent of separatipn betwewn
detectors in space by an amount $\bm other a local change of the of points in space which it is for the detectors to harvest entanglement. such a local phase change of $\zeta$ also effects a translation of its transform: namely $\bar\zeta(\bm x)\rightarrow \bar \zeta(\bm x-\bm x_0)$. Note that the discrepancy by factor 2 the that the preferred points are translated ($\bm x_0/2$) and the amount that the Fourier transform $\bar\zeta$ shifted by ($\bm x_0$) can be removed by a different convention for exponent in the definition of Fourier Therefore we that to potential re-scaling) the transform of the field’s squeezing amplitude $\zeta$ directly tells us where in space the UDW detectors should centered if to harvest entanglement the field state. These are commensurate with where the fluctuations amplitude, and the stress energy density, are localized space. Having the dependence of the detectors’ center mass on their ability to harvest entanglement from squeezed field state, and having related this to the local phase of the squeezing amplitude, now turn to the of how the of squeezing affects detector’s abilities harvest entanglement. In Fig. \[fig:neg\_vs\_r\] we plot the negativity of a detector pair as a function of $\zeta(\bm k)=r$, which we assume be uniform across field modes. We notice interesting from these plots. Interestingly, can the harvesting the between the detectors. Indeed, find that while at low amplitude the amount of harvest depends on their spatial separation $d:=|\bm x_\textsc{a}-\bm at high squeezing this is not the In other words, in the limit of large uniform squeezing of the a detector by a large spatial distance will harvest the amount of entanglement as they were at the same location in space. A effect removal of distance scale in setup where vacuum is relevant was [@Hotta2014] where energy could of separation between
 detectors in space by an amounT $\bm x_0/2$. In otheR wordS, a lOcaL pHase ChanGe of the squeeziNG ampLitude effects a translatIon of ThE PoinTS iN spacE near whICh IT Is eAsIeR foR tHE dEtectOrs To harveSt entangleMenT. HOwever, such a lOCaL phase chanGe oF $\zeta$ also effEctS a tranSlAtiON of itS FoUrier TransfORm: nameLy $\bar\zeta(\Bm X)\RightaRRow \bar \zETA(\bM x-\bm X_0)$. Note that the discrEPaNCy by a factor of 2 bEtween ThE AmOUNt tHat The preferrEd PointS Are tranSLaTED ($\Bm x_0/2$) ANd the amount thAt the FourieR TraNsform $\BaR\zeTA$ is shiFted bY ($\bM X_0$) caN be removed bY choOsing a difFerent COnventiON for the ExponeNt iN thE defINiTiOn  oF a fOurIEr TraNSfoRm. TherefOrE wE concLude THAT (Up to A poTentIal re-Scaling) the FouRieR traNSfoRm of tHe fieLd’s sQuEezinG ampliTude $\zEtA$ directly tells uS wheRe in space The uDw deTeCtors SHould bE ceNteRed if thEy want tO HarVeST MOrE entanglement from tHe SQUeEzed fielD state. tHeSe PReferred LoCatIons ARE commEnsuRAtE with wheRe the fLUcTuAtions oF tHe fielD aMplItuDe, and THe stRess enErgy densIty, arE Localized in spaCE.

Having expounDEd THE dEPendEncE of the detecTors’ CEnteR of mASs On tHEir abIlity To HArVEst entanglement from A sQueezeD fielD state, and haviNg related tHIS To the locAl phASe OF the squeezing aMplitUde, let us noW Turn to thE quesTion of hoW the *magniTUDe* of the sQueEziNg aMplITUdE affects the deTECtor’S aBilitieS to Harvest EntAngLemEnt.

in fig. \[fig:neg\_Vs\_r\] we ploT tHe NeGaTivIty of A uDW detecToR paIr As a FunctIOn of $\zeTa(\bm k)=R$, whiCh We ONce Again asSUmE TO be uNiFoRm acRosS aLl fieLd moDEs. WE notice Several inTerEStinG fEaTures frOm these plots.

INtErestingly, HiGh sQueeziNG Can removE the dependence of entanglEMent harVesTing oN the Distance bEtwEen the DetECtors. INdeed, wE find ThAt wHILe at lOW SqUeeZiNg amplitudE THe aMount Of EntaNglemenT that the detectors cAN haRvest depends oN thEir sPATiAl sEPaRAtiOn $D:=|\Bm x_\TEXtsc{a}-\bm x_\textsc{b}|$, At high squeEzINg This is not tHE caSe. in other Words, in The liMIt of larGe uniform Squeezing Of The fIELd, a Detector paIr separaTed by a larGE spatIAl DistaNce Will haRvEst The saMe amouNT of EntanGlemenT aS if theY were At The same lOcation in space. A similar eFfect oF remoVal Of the distAncE ScaLe in a setuP wheRe vacuum enTanGleMent iS reLEvant Was sEEn In [@HOTta2014] whEre qUAntum enerGY tElePORtAtion could bE MADe iNdepeNdeNT of sepAratIon between
 detectors in space by anamount $\b m x_0 /2$ . I nothe r wo rds, a local p h asechange of the squeezin g amp li t udee ff ectsa trans l at i o n o fth e p oi n ts  in s pac e nearwhich it i s e as ier for thed et ectors tohar vest entangl eme nt. Ho we ver ,  such  alocal  phase change  of $\zet a$ also e f fects a t ra nsla tion of its Fouri e rt ransform: name ly $\b ar \ ze t a (\b m x )\rightarr ow  \bar \zeta(\ b mx - \ bmx _0)$. Note th at the disc r epa ncy by  a  fa c tor of  2 be tw e enthe amountthat  the pref erredp oints a r e trans lated($\ bmx_0/ 2 $)  a ndth e  am o un t t h atthe Four ie rtrans form $ \ b ar\z eta $ is  shif ted by ($\bmx_0 $) c a n b e rem ovedby c ho osing  a dif feren tconvention fortheexponentinth e d ef initi o n  ofa F our ier tra nsform. The re f o r ewe conclude that ( up t oa potent ial re - sc al i ng) theFo uri er t r a nsfor m of th e field’ s sque e zi ng  amplit ud e $\ze ta $ d ire ctlyt ells  us wh ere in s pacet he UDW detecto r s should be c e nt e r ed if t hey  want to ha rves t  mor e en t an gle m ent f rom t he sq u eezed field state.Th ese pr eferr ed locationsare commen s u r ate with  whe r et he fluctuation s ofthe fielda mplitude , and  the str ess energ y density,  ar e l oca liz e d  i n space.

Hav i n g ex po unded t hedepende nce  of  th e d et ectors’ c enter of  m as son  th eir a b ility to  h arv es t e ntang l ementfroma sq ue ez e d f ield st a te , andha vi ng r ela te d thi s to the  localphase ofthe sque ez in g ampli tude, let usno w turn toth e q uestio n of how t he *magnitude* of the s q ueezing  am plitu de a ffects th e d etecto r’s abilit ies to  harv es t e n t angle m e nt .
In  Fig. \[fi g : neg \_vs\ _r \] w e plotthe negativity ofa  UD W detector pa iras a f un cti o no f $ \z e ta( \ b m k)=r$, whichwe once ag ai n  a ssume to b e  un if orm acr oss all  fiel d  modes.  We notic e several  i nter e s tin g features  from th ese plots . 

Int e re sting ly,  highsq uee zingcan re m ove  thedepend en ce ofentan gl ement ha rvesting on the distanc e betw een t hedetectors . I n dee d, we fin d th at while a t l owsquee zin g  ampl itud e  t hea mount  ofe ntangleme n ttha t th e detectors c a n h arves t d e pendson t heir spatial sepa r ation $d:=|\bm  x_\ t e xts c{a } -\bm  x _\textsc{b}|$,  at  h i g h squeez in g this is n ot the c as e . Inotherwords,  in the l im i t of l arge  un iform squ eez in g  of the  f ie l d, a d etec to r pair  separ a tedb y  a large spatial  dist a n ce wi l l h arves tthe sam e  amo unt of ent anglement a s if t heywereat thesa me loc ati on  in space. A similar  effe ct of r em oval  of  the d ista n c e sca le i na s etup wher e va c uu me nta ngle mentis  rel evant was seen in[@H o tta2014 ]whe r e  quant u me n ergy telep ort ation c ould be ma d e in d ep e ndent  of se parati on betw e en
 detectors_in space_by an amount $\bm_x_0/2$. In_other_words, a_local_phase change of_the squeezing amplitude_effects a translation of_the points in_space_near which it is easier for the detectors to harvest entanglement. However, such a_local_phase change_of_$\zeta$_also effects a translation of_its Fourier transform: namely $\bar\zeta(\bm_x)\rightarrow \bar_\zeta(\bm x-\bm x_0)$. Note that the discrepancy by_a_factor of 2_between the amount that the preferred points are translated_($\bm x_0/2$) and the amount that_the Fourier transform_$\bar\zeta$_is_shifted by ($\bm x_0$)_can be removed by choosing a_different convention for the exponent in_the definition  of a Fourier transform. Therefore_we conclude that (up to a_potential re-scaling) the Fourier transform_of the_field’s squeezing amplitude $\zeta$ directly_tells us where_in space_the UDW detectors_should be centered if they want_to harvest more_entanglement from the squeezed field state._These_preferred locations are_commensurate_with_where the_fluctuations of the_field_amplitude, and_the_stress energy density, are localized in_space.

Having_expounded the dependence of the detectors’ center_of mass on their_ability_to harvest entanglement from_a squeezed field state, and_having related this to the local_phase of_the squeezing_amplitude, let us now turn to the question of how the_*magnitude* of the squeezing amplitude affects_the detector’s abilities to_harvest entanglement.

In_Fig. \[fig:neg\_vs\_r\]_we plot the_negativity_of a_UDW detector pair as a function of_$\zeta(\bm k)=r$,_which we once again assume to_be uniform across all_field_modes. We notice several interesting features_from these plots.

Interestingly, high squeezing can_remove the dependence of entanglement_harvesting_on_the distance between the detectors._Indeed, we find that while at_low squeezing amplitude_the amount of entanglement that the detectors_can_harvest depends on their spatial separation_$d:=|\bm_x_\textsc{a}-\bm x_\textsc{b}|$, at high squeezing this_is_not_the case. In other words,_in the limit of large uniform_squeezing of the field, a detector pair separated by_a large spatial_distance will harvest the same_amount_of_entanglement as if they were at the same location in_space. A_similar effect of_removal of the distance scale in a setup where vacuum_entanglement is relevant was seen in [@Hotta2014]_where quantum energy teleportation could be made independent of separation between