https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIk_0AW5hFU

In this Veritasium video titled There Is Something Faster Than Light wrong about the interpretation of Bell's Theorem and Bell Test.

At 38:30, it states

So quantum mechanics is non-local, but it doesn't lead to the sort of catastrophic paradoxes you might expect from relativity

However, as I understand it, Quantum Mechanics is a local theory, or at least it isn't necessarily non-local. In the context of the video, it also seems to imply that reality must be non-local. I thought it was not locally real.

At 39:38, it states

We need to be teaching Bell's theorem in a different way. We do often teach Bell's theorem to physics students, and it's taught as something that rules out local hidden variables. That's just not true.

However, I thought the main point of Bell's theorem was that it does rule out local hidden variable theories. This is also stated on the Wikipedia page of Bell's theorem.

Lastly, around 33:41 it states

but this is one of the most misunderstood experiments in all of physics. - You'll find in all sorts of physics textbooks and papers and whatnot, that what Bell's theorem proves is that it rules out local hidden variables or local realism. John Bell said that was an error, you know, he, he said like, it's really quite remarkable how many people make that error.

Firstly, I could not find a source on Bell stating that. If this statement is true, what is the conclusion of Bell's Theorem then? Lastly, I was wondering if they could be using the definitions of locality, realism, and hidden-variables differently or ambiguously.

Are these statements not wrong in terms of the definitions used by physicists? If this is not agreed upon, does Bell's theorem at least disprove local hidden variable theories as they would be defined in the EPR paper?(In the sense of how realism is defined in the EPR paper)

In this Veritasium video titled There Is Something Faster Than Light wrong about the interpretation of Bell's Theorem and Bell Test.

At 38:30, it states

So quantum mechanics is non-local, but it doesn't lead to the sort of catastrophic paradoxes you might expect from relativity

However, as I understand it, Quantum Mechanics is a local theory, or at least it isn't necessarily non-local. In the context of the video, it also seems to imply that reality must be non-local. I thought it was not locally real.

At 39:38, it states

We need to be teaching Bell's theorem in a different way. We do often teach Bell's theorem to physics students, and it's taught as something that rules out local hidden variables. That's just not true.

However, I thought the main point of Bell's theorem was that it does rule out local hidden variable theories. This is also stated on the Wikipedia page of Bell's theorem.

Lastly, around 33:41 it states

but this is one of the most misunderstood experiments in all of physics. - You'll find in all sorts of physics textbooks and papers and whatnot, that what Bell's theorem proves is that it rules out local hidden variables or local realism. John Bell said that was an error, you know, he, he said like, it's really quite remarkable how many people make that error.

Firstly, I could not find a source on Bell stating that. If this statement is true, what is the conclusion of Bell's Theorem then? Lastly, I was wondering if they could be using the definitions of locality, realism, and hidden-variables differently or ambiguously.

Are these statements not wrong in terms of the definitions used by physicists? If this is not agreed upon, does Bell's theorem at least disprove local hidden variable theories as they would be defined in the EPR paper?(In the sense of how realism is defined in the EPR paper)