That the speed of light may not be constant in our Universe is indeed exciting, but it is not news at all, I recently posted a link to a news report from New Scientist that Australian researchers have shown that time may indeed be slowing down.
But this discussion is hypothetical to the extreme, because first we must
a) assume that there is a multitude of universes
b) assume that light (or any other source of information) may reach us from this other universe
c) assume that we may be able to probe beyond the de Sitter horizon
I am not a cosmologist so I cannot offer definitions of terms.
To learn more about Willem de Sitter, here is a short bio:
Willem de Sitter biography
What is the de Sitter horizon:
John Gribbin: Inflation for beginners - search this page for "de sitter" and you'll find a brief introduction.
I have read lots of books about cosmology and at work I am doing a feature on John Barrow, one of the brains behind the anthropic principle. I do not agree with the writers of the article in Nature that the Multiverse theory refutes the anthropic principle, rather I see it as a philosophical excercise which actually builds on it. The anthropic principle (which, admittedly, is a rather complex philosophical path) opens up for the possibilities of evolving universes - which would make the Multiverse seem rather necessary in stead of surprising.
But that's just my thoughts on the subject...again, I am not a specialist on this.
