Allow to use random seed in make_synthetic_data

[santisoler]

Summary

Add a new random_seed argument to the make_synthetic_data method.
Switch to the Numpy's random number generator object and pass the
random_seed argument to np.random.default_rng, allowing users to
specify a random seed for the synthetic noise. Set random seeds in some
tests that were failing due to the new random state that the usage of
make_synthetic_data with random_seed created in the test suite.

PR Checklist

• If this is a work in progress PR, set as a Draft PR
• Linted my code according to the style guides.
• Added tests to verify changes to the code.
• Added necessary documentation to any new functions/classes following the
  expect style.
• Marked as ready for review (if this is was a draft PR), and converted
  to a Pull Request
• Tagged @simpeg/simpeg-developers when ready for review.

Reference issue

Related to #1289

What does this implement/fix?

Additional information

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1286 (38fdc64) into main (875fc32) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1286   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   82.36%   82.36%           
=======================================
  Files         164      164           
  Lines       25098    25099    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits        20673    20674    +1     
  Misses       4425     4425           

Files	Coverage Δ
SimPEG/simulation.py	95.57% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️

[santisoler]

@jcapriot I managed to get the tests to pass here. But at some point I would love to see all tests run with a hard coded seed. Do you think it worth tackling that in this PR or should we merge this one and tackle the rest in a separate one?

[lheagy]

Thanks @santisoler! It will be valuable to have better practices in place for dealing with randomness. This looks good to me 🚀

I know there are a lot of other places across SimPEG to do this, one of the higher priority places to look to next would be the directives: I am specifically thinking of the beta-estimator. We can start an issue if you like, I am just commenting here as it is top-of-mind as I look at these updates