Every physics and EM theory text book talks about the so-called "point charge".
I have a great deal of doubt whether it does exist, and in fact I have issues with the term itself, and how it is used. Look at the attached screen shot from Wolfgang Pauli's book "Theory of Relativity" for a typical ambiguous use of the term.
A point charge can not be a "charge" in and of itself, it is some form of mass (usually a particle) that "carries", "contains", or "has the condition of" a charge. Charge itself is massless, so it can not be a particle or "thing" in the sense of being a physical object, and you can not have a "charge" without mass involved.
I also submit that a "point charge" can not exist in the sense that is depicted in all the reference material. Usually, a point charge is depicted as a small isolated point in space carrying a negative charge, denoted as -q or simply q. What exactly is the charge on this particle in reference to? I.E. it can not exist alone. For every charged particle, there exists another oppositely-charged particle coupled to it.
Therefore, the term "charge" can not preclude the fact that it goes hand in hand with an electric "dipole".
In this sense, we should not be searching for the ever-elusive "magnetic monopole", as it doesn't exist, nor is it required.
You always go after the big fish
Are you seeking to place symmetry back into post Heavyside electro-magnetics - Expose Coulomb's experiments for the amount of assumptions made or the mystical models invented to fit Newton's math - even worse, start theorizing??
Where did we come up with the idea of a monopole/point-charge? This would mean it could exist without anything else in the same frame of space-time.
Isn't that a bit idiotic? A point exists but the existence doesn't rely upon another existence to provide a source for comparison? I suppose it is time to go back on the meds. Really! They teach this crap today?
At least my mentors explained a point charge as a momentum with attraction and repulsion due to frame dragging(while in relative motion) and space-time warpage(while not in relative motion). This momentum was explained as storage of energy. There was no negative storage and direction didn't matter. That was in the late 60's & early 70's. Today, I'm sure they would be locked up, or forced to come in from the cold.
I also disagree with the pushed concept of a point charge and the current descriptions of a magnetic monopole.
.99, I'm not sure how this fits with your thoughts....
If a charge monopole cannot exist then the charge dipole would have a trait of the magnetic dipole. When repelling poles approach each other it is said the force between them grows by the inverse-square law.
This is true for a monopole or dipole.... until the distance closes to a certain point. Then the force grows by the inverse cube law
Maybe a variation of Coulomb's experiment is in order?
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein
"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg