I'm somewhat confused how cosmic inflation, which I understand to be originally proposed by Edwin Hubble as a solution to cosmic redshift 100 years ago, solves any of these problems.
The way inflation allegedly solves the horizon problem would require a degree of equilibrium not seen in nature. Th flatness problem would require space itself to be "a thing" and, again, in motion smoother that anything in nature. And if either of those impossibly balanced events are true, then everything must be monopoles which is highly improbable.
In my opinion, quantum mechanics provides a potential solution. There are certainly protperties or particles in the universe that share states or information instantaneously over a distance. If a flat unchanging space universe the full of entangled pre-standard model (non-dilation contributing) particles like Higgs bosons, quantum probability of location would statistically place them evenly across the universe. The period of time these particles could have been chaotically moving and the geometry of their place of origin is largely irrelevant. They could have been zipping around aimlessly at any speed for near infinity time before our universe.
When an event causes even one of them to betray a state (perhaps two of them collided, which is itself an infintessimally small probability) alll of them would betray their state and decay into the fundamental particles and "forces" we experinece today.
This solves horizon with a quantum probability or chaos distribution. Flatness since space is simply flat. And the monopole problem since, at the minimum, entangled particles would collapse to mirror states (two poles). The random distribution of particles and poles would allow the formation of the universe we see today.
You may then ask about the highly problematic and yet unproven cosmic expansion implied by cosmic redshift. I have a theory that uses only Einstein relativity to clearly describe the action of redshift. Although I just described my thoughts on the origins of the universe, it is compatible with all origin theories and is dark matter free.
In short, no one can in fact prove it happens, and I believe it can be proven that it doesnt.
Yes, I still have some requirements and assumptions, but I would argue I'm leveraging an approach based on observation and is compatible with known properties of the universe. An ideal marble of matter that violates all known rules of physics does not fit the razor.
Thank you for your article! Despite my obvious skepticism, I value the opportunity to examine all theories and weight their merits in challenge to my own theories and observations.
