Your statement suffers from two serious weaknesses. First. "current systems" does not mean what you think it means. Second, it is far too simplistic, ignoring the two-way interaction between magnetic fields and charged particles.
What do you think a "current system" is? Or perhaps more appropriately, what do you think an "electric current" is? Most people, when confronted by the words "electric current" will think of a coherent flow of particles, all of which share the same sign of electric charge, as exemplified by the electric current flowing in the wires all around us. But that is not what "current systems" means in the paper you cited.
Yes, that is what they mean. Flux ropes are not charge neutral.
Current system means source and return!!!!!
To a plasma physicist a current system is simply any coherent motion of charged particles, even if the moving system of particles is at all times charge neutral, by which I mean that for any given unit volume, the total number of positively charged particles equals the total number of negatively charged particles, such that the net electric charge of the representative volume is zero.
You could draw a circle around the whole universe and say its charge neutral.
The area of interest carrying the current, the flux rope(current system), is not charge neutral.
You can tell from the helical magnetic field, the same structure as a "wire".
So. There is still a magnetic field, MOVING electrons that make a magnetic field. Unless you want to say that that is not the case. In order for the plasma to be formed there is an injection of electrons into the system from the cathode.
If the plasma stays ionized there must be an excess of electrons, or electrons with a energy high enough to ionize the neutral population(where do they come from?).
When you turn off the electrons, recombination results(plasma goes dark) with the excess electrons recombining at the walls.
Hence, a plasma "current system" might easily not result in any net motion of charge. Those charge neutral currents generate magnetic fields, a fact well know to both theory and experiment. So the idea that you must have a good old fashioned household style electric current to get a magnetic field is simply not true.
If you mean bulk transfer of charge from one part of the experiment to the other, yes but this is not the case. We have filaments within the bulk that do the work.
If there is no motion of space charge that does not mean that the individual charges cannot form a flux rope. Thats what we are talking about.
Flux ropes are electric currents. They are not charge neutral.
They call it electromagnetism for a reason. It's electro and magnetism, they come together as a package, each feeding off of the other.
I am not arguing with Faraday's law of induction.
I am saying cause and effect are important.
Look at the most basic cause of magnetism. It is from motion of, or motion in the electron.
It does not exist by itself without a moving charge or motion.
However electrical charge can exist without a magnetic field.
So you can see the charge is primary and magnetism arises from charge motion which makes it secondary.
You need to keep cause and effect in order, to really understand the energetics of a system.
Mechanical energy (like the energy of turbulent motion) in a plasma can be converted to magnetic energy, amplifying a small magnetic field into a large magnetic field. You overlook this amplification mechanism and naively assume that any magnetic field you see must have been directly generated by a non-neutral electric current flowing in place with the magnetic field.
Turbulence does not amplify except in MHD equations.
This is purely a theoretical mechanism. Liquid metal dynamos do not work without an electrical input. If they did you could just put a permanent magnet inside the dynamo and turn it on and have it work.
But this is not the case.
The more electrons you have flowing in one direction(coherence) the stronger your local magnetic field. There is coherent motion of electrons within the bulk of the metal to form the magnetic field.
But that is well known not too be true. Not only can a plasma amplify a pre-existing magnetic field, but as we saw above, it can generate the field in the first place through dynamo action. So in no instance is any non-neutral electric current ever required in a plasma to get a strong magnetic field.
Show me the money. Show me an experiment where this is the case.
There is a huge physics literature on this and I find it somewhat amusing that the self-appointed champions of the alternate view are so incredibly ignorant of it. See, for instance, Stellar Magnetism by Leon Mestel, Oxford University Press 1999, 2003. The whole book is obviously on point, but pay special attention to chapter 2 (Theoretical Basis) and chapter 6 (Stellar Dynamos); chapter 4 (Magnetism and Convection) is useful for understanding photospheric magnetic fields in particular. There are plenty of other sources, but that should do for now. If you don't care enough to consult the references I offer, that's your affair. But if you keep repeating things known by physics to be false, while simultaneously ignoring that known physics, then your credibility on the matter is likely to be questionable at the very least.
I looked at the book. There some observations but it mostly theory. Its based on MHD which we know breaks down at smaller scales and is based on a top down approach, i.e. turbulence from the outside drives the particles which then makes the magnetic field.
Again, for the solar dynamo to work you would need to have a toroidal flow(SOLENOID) underneath the solar surface at the equator to produce the observed solar magnetic fields.
Turbulence wont do it. If it did I could put a magnet in liquid metal, stir it around and generate a nice dipole magnetic field. Doesnt happen.
I dont know what your fascination with MHD is. You know its not complete.
It definitely does not describe kinetic particle motion like PIC.
