Moonlit Gamma-Ray Telescopes Could Estimate Polaris’s Radius and Pulsations, Simulations Suggest

On a moonlit night at Hanle, Ladakh, a 21-meter gamma-ray telescope is normally not used for its usual job. Moonlight makes the faint flashes of Cherenkov light from high-energy cosmic gamma rays hard to detect. But the same kind of telescope can still collect photons. A new preprint asks whether those photons might be used for something else entirely: estimating the size and pulsation of Polaris, the North Star.

The study, posted to arXiv in August 2025, is a simulation-based feasibility analysis. It does not report new observations of Polaris. Instead, it explores whether India’s Cherenkov telescope facilities—simulated from MACE- and TACTIC-like designs, normally used to study very-high-energy gamma rays—could be repurposed on moonlit nights for intensity interferometry, a technique that turns separated light collectors into a powerful stellar ruler.

A Star That Should Be Simple—but Isn’t

Polaris is familiar, but it is not simple. It is a triple star system. The primary, Polaris Aa, is a Cepheid variable: a star whose outer layers expand and contract, causing its brightness to vary as it pulsates. Cepheids matter far beyond their own neighborhoods. Their period-luminosity relation—a relationship between pulsation period and intrinsic brightness—helps astronomers measure distances beyond the Milky Way.

Yet Polaris has resisted easy explanation. Its brightness varies by a small and somewhat erratic amount around apparent magnitude 1.98, a measure of apparent brightness. Its pulsation mode is debated: some studies suggest it pulsates in the fundamental mode, while others propose a first or second overtone. Its distance is also uncertain, which muddies estimates of its size and other physical properties.

That makes Polaris a good test case. If a new instrument or technique can pin down its radius and how that radius changes, it could help refine the calibration of the Cepheid period-luminosity relation—and test how well the technique works on a bright, nearby Cepheid.

Turning a Gamma-Ray Eye Into an Interferometer

Intensity interferometry is not new. In the 1950s, Hanbury Brown and Twiss showed that by measuring correlations between photons arriving at two separated detectors, astronomers could infer the angular size of a star. The method does not require the light waves to be perfectly combined, as in traditional Michelson interferometry. Instead, it measures the second-order correlation of intensity: photons from the same tiny source tend to arrive in correlated pairs.

This has practical advantages. Because intensity interferometry uses very fast photon counting—on nanosecond timescales—it is less troubled by atmospheric turbulence, which mostly distorts the phase of light waves over milliseconds to seconds. It can also use large, relatively cheap light collectors and long baselines, the separations between detectors. The larger the baseline, the finer the angular resolution.

Cherenkov telescopes are natural candidates. They have large mirrors and fast photon detectors. On dark nights, they watch for faint, fleeting flashes of Cherenkov light produced when high-energy gamma rays interact in Earth’s atmosphere. On moonlit nights, that job becomes difficult. But the hardware can still count photons from bright stars. Facilities such as VERITAS, MAGIC, H.E.S.S., and the ASTRI array have already been used or proposed for intensity interferometry. This paper asks what Indian facilities could do.

Two Ways to Build Baselines

The authors simulate two configurations. The first is a single large Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Telescope modeled on MACE, with a 21-meter reflector at Hanle, Ladakh and 1,424 mirror facets. A single telescope normally gives only zero-baseline information, which is not enough for detailed imaging. So the study uses a split-mirror technique: four groups of mirror facets act as separate sub-apertures on the same dish. That creates six virtual baselines, mimicking a small array.

The second configuration uses three telescopes similar to those at the TACTIC observatory at Mount Abu, Rajasthan. Each has about 9.5 square meters of light-collecting area, and the three telescopes form three baselines.

For both cases, the team simulated 15 nights of observation, 10 hours per night, including the way Earth’s rotation changes the projected baselines over time. They modeled the photon signal and its noise, then used Bayesian inference—a statistical method that updates estimates as data are added—to estimate three parameters: Polaris’s mean radius and two coefficients describing a simple harmonic radial pulsation.

The simulations assumed Polaris pulsates in its fundamental mode, its simplest radial pulsation pattern, with a simple sine-like variation. The star was treated as a blackbody—an idealized thermal emitter—with an average temperature of 6,015 kelvin. Its mean radius was set to 87.02 light-seconds—about 26 million kilometers—and its distance to 10 billion light-seconds. The observing wavelength was 570 nanometers, in visible light, with a narrow 1-nanometer bandwidth.

What the Simulated Precision Shows

With the single-telescope setup, the simulated signal-to-noise ratio—a measure of signal strength relative to noise—reached about 1,165 after 15 nights. The mean radius was recovered with an uncertainty of about 0.71 percent. The two pulsation coefficients were much less certain: about 19.30 percent and 15.26 percent.

With the three-telescope array, the simulated signal-to-noise ratio was about 1,050 when using two detection channels. The mean radius uncertainty improved to about 0.36 percent. The pulsation coefficients were estimated to about 13.58 percent and 11.11 percent—better than the single-telescope case, even though the array had only three baselines compared with six virtual baselines from the split mirror.

The authors note that the comparison is not perfectly even: the three-telescope simulation used two channels to reduce noise, while the single-telescope simulation used one. The single telescope, however, offered stronger coverage of the observational plane. Both setups, in simulation, produced enough signal to estimate the stellar parameters.

The Gap Between Simulation and Sky

The important caveat is that these are simulations. No actual Polaris data were analyzed. The star’s real pulsation is likely more complex than a simple harmonic function; the paper uses that simple form as a first demonstration. The work also assumes an average surface temperature and does not solve the ongoing debate about Polaris’s pulsation mode. Distance uncertainties, instrumental imperfections, and other real-world effects could alter the precision.

The simulations also make optimistic assumptions. For the single telescope, quantum efficiency and signal loss were set to unity to explore a theoretical limit. For the three-telescope case, only 20 percent of each aperture’s area was counted as effective, but other effects may still reduce performance. Intensity interferometry also loses phase information, which makes reconstructing images harder than in traditional interferometry, though machine-learning methods are improving that.

Still, the study’s central claim is modest and interesting: Indian Cherenkov facilities could be used for optical stellar measurements during otherwise unproductive moonlit periods, at little or no additional cost. The next step would be real observations.

Moonlight as a New Instrument

Polaris lies nearly aligned with Earth’s rotational axis, so it appears almost stationary in the night sky. Now it may help guide a different kind of navigation: how to get more science out of telescopes that spend bright nights waiting. If the simulations hold up against real sky data, the Moon could turn from an obstacle into an opportunity for gamma-ray observatories like these. The faint, correlated arrival of starlight—measured one photon at a time—might be enough to reveal the radial pulse beneath the North Star.