isn't miner collusion rational? suppose for the sake of argument that each individual miner has the same amount of hashing power of one hash per unit of time (a "tick").

the probability that a miner solves their block in the next tick increases with the number of hashes already checked, since the nonce space is finite.

colluding miners could agree to pay the coinbase transaction to the same address and thus work on solving exactly the same block.  they could divide the nonce space amongst them and thus exhaust the nonce space faster than solo miners.

by agreeing to redistribute the rewards of their mining amongst them, the colluding miners have an expected payout for the next tick that increases faster than that of solo miners, since they are exhausting their nonce space faster.

so isn't it rational for miners to collude?  could this create a tendency to monopoly in mining?
No. Your premise is wrong. There is no guarantee a solution exists in a range. If a miner exhausts a nonce range he changes other components of the block header. Mining is a Poisson process with each hash attempt independent of any others.

Hence, there is nothing to gain with this particular kind of collusion. Of course, pooled miners enjoy less variance than solo miners (which is legitimate), and there are other methods of attack.