Jimmy87 said:
Thanks again, and thank you for giving me a reliable link! So for the person who's watch has ticked 10 minutes and 700 heart beats have occurred then can you say that for the person near the neutron star, he will live 100 times longer relative to that person but in his own frame he just lives a normal life as far as he is concerned, is that right? What would be the equivalent case in SR, i.e. if I move relative to you in an inertial reference frame and the factor of time dilation is 100 then is it the exact same situation as for GR that we have been discussing?
Yes, with some caveats. It's dangerous to compare times not at the same place. This is one of the fundamental results of relativity in general. It's best to compare times only at the same place.
Let's call the person on the Neutron star person A, and the person far away from the neutron star person B. Person A and person B both will live their average life spans according to their own watch. So they both live their normal lives as far as they are concerned, that is correct. And in this case, because gravitational time dilation is not symmetric, person A will indeed see person B live longer, and person B will see person A live shorter.
But this is not so in the case of the twin paradox! If person A is the person staying on Earth, and person B is the person flying away from Earth at very high speeds. During the trip out, person A will see that person B is aging slower, and person B will see that person A is aging slower! This is the twin paradox. Who is right? Who's clock is
actually going slower? Well, according to relativity, they are both right! There is no objective way to tell who's clock is
actually ticking slower (this would amount equivalently to an objective way to say who is
actually moving, while relativity says that this determination cannot be made) until person B comes back to person A and they can compare their watches.
When person B comes back to person A, and they can compare watches, THEN, one will see that person B aged less and person A aged more. Why is that? Well, because it's person B that made the reverse journey. Person B switched reference frames on his journey back (he had to slow down, stop, and reverse), and this switch in reference frames accounts for all the differential aging that will be seen when he actually gets back (contrary to some explanations, the switching reference frames part is the important part, and not necessarily the acceleration part, we can make the acceleration as quick as possible and still get the same effect).
This example should illustrate why it's dangerous to say things like "A actually aged 100 times slower than B" if the comparison is NOT made in the same place (in the same reference frame).