This seems interesting.  However, could you please elaborate your question and the figure that you have attached.  

I don`t know about the direct measurements of magnetic field around a single electron. It may has some special form or be absent without external influence.

As expected, the magnetic field will affect the phase of the wavefunction and, thus, the diffraction pattern. Nothing, particularly, new.  

Yatendra, thanks, please check the paper using the link, you can get the figure and two others which explained the field as unknown factor. 

Alexander and Stamp, In 1963, Feynman made claime about the double slit experiment that it "is impossible, absolutely impossible, to explain in any classical way."(http://www.sci.buu.ac.th/~physics/chainarong/fundamental%20physics/Richard%20Feynman%20-%20The%20Feynman%20Lectures%20on%20Physics%20Volume%203.pdf) But in the suggested paper (it contain the figure), and as it's known magnetic field is produced by electrons, a characteristic neglectic since the time of Maxwell; as a scientist, would you think about such field as a factor which could influence behavior and interactions of charged particles with other objects including the double slits? Or are we to be content with Feynman above statement?

The interference effect of an electon propagating across a double slit, or a crystal lattice, is a quantum effect-but this doesn't mean that it isn't sensitive to an external  magnetic field. How this works is, in fact, also, described by Feynman in his lectures-one solves the Schrödinger equation in the presence of the magnetic field and finds an additional phase factor. Once more, what matters is the calculation, not any statement. It doesn't make sense quoting a text on a scientific result, because the words don't matter-their meaning does. 

Stam, if you check our paper "The Photoelectric Effect Radiation Based: With Atomic Model"(at: http://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/downloads/82_IJFPS_March_2015_18_31.pdf), in which Eq (24) shows the magnetic force is embedded in the radiation similar to Planck's energy formula, the equation gives strong prove that quanta or photon was unnecessaryly introduce, from that we found that Young's double slit experiment is just an interference between two waves (http://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/the-double-slit-experimentexplained-2090-0902-1000179.php?aid=76055). If quanta doesn't exist, then duality doesn't exist and the circular magnetic field (CMF) produced by an electron emerged as two waves from the two slits, both interfere positively or negatively to produce patches or to cancel each other.

This isn't relevant-the only relevant aspects are the description of the electron by a wavefunction in the presence of an (electro)magnetic field, that's described by a vector potential. The effect of the vector potential is to insert an additional phase factor in the wavefunction, equal to the line integral of the vector potential-this is nothing more and nothing less than (a generalization of) the Aharonov-Bohm effect, in fact. The contribution of the magnetic flux will shift the interference pattern of the electron, relative to what it would have been had there been no such flux. 

Maxwell wrote about electromagnetic field around a conductor on the base of experimental results from Faraday. Electrons and other particles without medium can show another magnetic characteristics. Feynman is the great scientist but he is the theoretician. Relatively simple experiment on registration of magnetic field around elemental particles (beams) in vacuum without external (instrumental) magnetic distortions is an urgent issue for this field.

Stam, since wave function, in quantum mechanics is "a variable quantity that mathematically describes the wave characteristics of a particle." and that "The value of the wave function of a particle at a given point of space and time is related to the likelihood of the particle’s being there at the time." (https://www.britannica.com/science/wave-function). That means I can use this wave function if I recognized the existence of quanta (photon), but as Eq. (24) in ("The Photoelectric Effect Radiation Based: With Atomic Model"(at: http://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/downloads/82_IJFPS_March_2015_18_31.pdf) showed, the force is embedded in electromagnetic radiation similar to Planck's energy(E=hv), and Einstein was mistaken by invoking the quanta (photon) to remove electron from the atom in photoelectric effect, he knows that, it's why he faied to know what photon is for more than fifty years (Shih, Ming-Feng, Developing Ideas about Photons: since the First Paper about Photoelectric Effect by Einstein in 1905, AAAPPS Bulletin-Vol.15-1, ISSN: 0218-2203, 2005.), during which he was looking for a solution for the odd photon, which we formulated as Eq (24) and it is been supported with five tables giving different examples of radiation force obtained due to this formula, I think you better criticized the formula, if its false or incorrect, so I can stop using it, but if it is correct as I beloved, then check how light interfere as wave (without photon) in "The Double Slits-Explained (http://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/the-double-slit-experimentexplained-2090-0902-1000179.php?aid=76055), to produce the patches. You can then check in any laboratory if electron produced circular magnetic field (CMF), if that is true and the CMF exist, then check the paper (http://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/the-double-slit-experimentexplained-2090-0902-1000179.php?aid=76055) once again, for how CMF from an electron enter into two slits and why, and how they interacted, because since the main goal of physics is to understand how the universe behaves (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics), and since Eq. (24) claims there is no photon, this means any Branch that used photon should review their interpretation.

Need for more elaboration....

Alexander, on 21 April 1820, during a lecture, Hans Christian Ørsted noticed a compass needle deflected from magnetic north when an electric current from a battery was switched on and off, confirming a direct relationship between electricity and magnetism, showing that an electric current produces a circular magnetic field (CMF), as it flows through a wire. This discovery was not due to mere chance, since Ørsted had been looking for a relation between electricity and magnetism for several years. The special symmetry of the phenomenon was possibly one of the difficulties that retarded the discovery (at: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Christian_%C3%98rsted).The French physicist André-Marie Ampère's developed a mathematical formula to represent the magnetic forces between current-carrying conductors, based on electric and magnetic parameter. Ampere didn't utilized the magnetic parameters in the force as expressed by the Circular Magnetic Field (CMF), and the CMF was completely neglected, till we revived it in "The Magnetic Interaction" (Yousif, M. E. The Magnetic Interaction, Comprehensive Theory Articles, Journal of Theoretics, vol. 5, 2003a. (at: http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/links/Papers/MY.pdf), in which we introduced magnetic formulas replacing Ampere formulas, it allowed us to review many phenomena,  among which the production of Electromagnetic Radiation (EM-R, by Maxwell and found his acceleration mechanism lacks the basics of how, hence we introduced our Flip-Flop (F-F) mechanism, in two papers "The Electromagnetic Radiation Mechanism," (at http://fundamentaljournals.org/ijfps/downloads/68_IJFPS_Sept_2014_72_79.pdf) and the condition required it's production in "Electromagnetic Radiation Energy and Planck’ Constant," (at http://www.ijirae.com/volumes/vol1/issue10/67.NVEE10087.pdf), then how the strong Nucleus Spinning Nagnetic Field (NSMF) pulled the EM-R when produced as given in the example of the Secondary Electromagnetic Radiation (S-EM-R) in "The Compton Effect Re-Visited," (at: http://crescopublications.org/pdf/JAAP/JAAP-1-004.pdf).These papers are efforts meant for a better understanding to ourselves and the nature around us, the concentration on electric parameter, while neglecting the magnetic parameters is the reason why Einstein was forced to introduced the quanta (photon), because he didn't have any alternative, while he was not convinced about it, it is why he failed to know what quanta (photon) is, as he stated that several times (Shih, Ming-Feng, Developing Ideas about Photons: since the First Paper about Photoelectric Effect by Einstein in 1905, AAAPPS Bulletin-Vol.15-1, ISSN: 0218-2203, 2005.), thanks.

Rutvik, I hope the above answer give explain the points.