I've been reading some papers about electron double slit experiments, including the one by Jonsson which seems to be the most detailed and well written so far, but I've only been able to find about five papers total. Jonsson was one, then a 1989 single-electron double slit experiment, and a few others. Anyway, I'm noticing that a lot of these papers do not give sufficient detail to know whether they might have introduced systematic errors into their data. (The data is qualitatively consistent with QM so I assume that's considered good enough evidence that they didn't, but I'd still like to walk through all the possibilities for myself.) Also, the number of papers I've been able to find is pretty small. Can anyone recommend a comprehensive, or at least large, list of electron double slit experiments? I've been trying to use scholar.google.com but I get a lot of unrelated papers. A few of the things I'm interested in finding are... 1) have experiments been done with the same apparatus but with the angle from the electron source to the slits changed to several different values, 2) where the distance from source to slits was varied to several different values, 3) where the number of electrons being emitted by the source was counted and all electrons (or a large %) were quantitatively accounted for, such as by placing detectors adjacent to the slits 4) where the distance from the slits to the electron detectors was varied 5) where the point of detection (and time) of each electron was recorded and is available in a table so statistical formulas can be applied to the distribution, rather than just looking at the distribution qualitatively For example, even in Jonsson's experiment, the schematic of the apparatus is only shown for 2 slits, and it looks like the source is pointed directly between the two slits. In the case of 3 slits, does it point directly through the 3rd slit? In the case of 4, is it in the middle dividing each pair? I assume so, but it'd be nice if he said so. Basically, I would just like to see that the experimental conditions have been varied sufficiently to make it very unlikely that some sort of unknown error is being introduced into the experiment due to some behavior not yet discovered because the conditions haven't been varied. I know there's probably no reason to suspect this, but I think it's best to check anyway just to be sure. I've been really surprised so far that in these papers nobody said "Well, what if we move the apparatus like this..." and reperformed the experiment a dozen times with a few things changed just to see what happens (probably nothing, but who knows unless we experiment?).