This is highly dependent on what field you're in. I'm guessing physics from the question, but even so it depends on your subfield.
Still, as a general matter of scientific methodology: there have been plenty of papers - including many good ones, and many famous ones - that have raised hypotheses and presented models, without also including experiments. This may be because the experiment would be extremely difficult, because the topic itself is inherently theoretical, or simply because the authors are not in an experimental department. There are plenty of journals that specialise in such theoretical results, where such a paper could be submitted.
However, what you almost certainly can't claim is that by running your model you have tested the hypothesis. If your hypothesis is about something that would happen in the real world, then it's not tested until someone has done the experiment to test it. That doesn't mean you can't publish the hypothesis, and use the model to back it up. The model may suggest the hypothesis is true, but by the standards of almost every subdiscipline, it wouldn't count as testing the hypothesis.
(The only exception I can think of is if your hypothesis is about how a particular type of model will behave when simulated, rather than being about the real world per se. In that case it can be reasonable to say you tested the hypothesis by running the simulation. But since your said your hypothesis could in principle be tested experimentally, I assume that's not the case here.)